BARTLESVILLE — An 18-year-old Bartlesville High School student was arrested early Friday after police uncovered an alleged school-shooting massacre plot.
Sammie Eaglebear Chavez attempted to recruit students in the school cafeteria on Wednesday to help him carry out a massive school shooting and bombing plot, police allege in a court affidavit.
“He also told them that if the students assisting him did not do what they were supposed to do, he would not hesitate to kill them and/or himself.”
Glad the police got him before he pulled this stunt. I just don't get what is going on in these peoples minds ...
PHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 5100 posts, RR: 14 Reply 1, posted (6 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3223 times:
Quoting Mortyman (Thread starter): Glad the police got him before he pulled this stunt. I just don't get what is going on in these peoples minds ...
This can easily be discussed in the other CT thread: It's a problem with our society. We need to figure out how to stop these kids from entering this mindset in the first place! It's a huge mental health issue!
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, RR: 47 Reply 2, posted (6 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3158 times:
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 1): We need to figure out how to stop these kids from entering this mindset in the first place! It's a huge mental health issue!
How do we do that? I'm sure most of these shooters, when asked questions, aren't gonna respond with obviously crazy answers. I wouldn't be surprised that if, given a psychological evaluation, he'd pass. Without being able to read people's minds, I don't think this behavior is so easily spotted...
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16932 posts, RR: 57 Reply 3, posted (6 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3062 times:
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 1): This can easily be discussed in the other CT thread: It's a problem with our society. We need to figure out how to stop these kids from entering this mindset in the first place! It's a huge mental health issue!
No, it is not a "problem with society." It is a problem with mental healthcare specifically. There are people born with bad hearts and bad lungs...and bad brains. The fact that accessing mental healthcare for a vast majority of Americans is difficult to impossible is unacceptable.
We need the state-run asylums opened back up. We need better funding for mental healthcare. It's not about "healthcare law," it's about public safety. Believe me, I work in a county where a kid (my 10yo patient) who chased his mother with a kitchen knife was turned away by the only mental health institution they had to (the County's) because he wasn't "acutely homicidal." Do you think that kid just needs a better society? Better parents? His two siblings are just fine with the same parents. No, this kid tried to torture the family cat when he was three. His brain is bad. No amount of "society" is going to fix it. He's going to be the next gunman if he doesn't get mental healthcare.
PHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 5100 posts, RR: 14 Reply 4, posted (6 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3056 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3): We need the state-run asylums opened back up. We need better funding for mental healthcare. It's not about "healthcare law," it's about public safety.
This sounds like a good plan....why were they shut down in the first place?
In Hamilton County, Ohio, the county's division of the state board of developmental disabilities (which oversees at-risk youth as well) is where my mom works, and she stated that the Lanza questions could have easily been answered if a full, diagnostic psychiatric test was done on the child before he reached 18...
IMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6207 posts, RR: 42 Reply 6, posted (6 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3025 times:
When I was in high school the solution was simple, you got your ass whipped for being a drama queen if you tried this crap. Quit treating children with kid gloves and they'll straighten up.
What is it with all the "is there a possibilty airline X will.." threads? The answer it'll is possible.
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12590 posts, RR: 64 Reply 7, posted (6 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3023 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5): Quoting PHX787 (Reply 4):This sounds like a good plan....why were they shut down in the first place?
Because Ronald Reagan. Seriously, that was one of his plans to reduce the deficit.
So if this is true, why hadn't the Clinton or Obama Administration do anything to reverse it? It's not like either president didn't/doesn't have the opportunity and the means to make it happen.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7525 posts, RR: 5 Reply 8, posted (6 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3016 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3): It is a problem with mental healthcare specifically.
And, in honor of that health care defect, Oklahoma's dumb broad of a Governor has signed an Open Carry Law. The whole state can be the OK Corral now.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5): Because Ronald Reagan. Seriously, that was one of his plans to reduce the deficit.
ANd that is a critical reason why we won't spend the money - the GOP would block any effort to increase government funding for any type of health care.
Quoting IMissPiedmont (Reply 6): When I was in high school the solution was simple, you got your ass whipped for being a drama queen if you tried this crap.
Now the kid comes mack to you with a gun and no hesitation to use it. It is the (now) American Tradition called Nuts With Guns In Schools.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13368 posts, RR: 64 Reply 9, posted (6 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3014 times:
I think the problem is that in most civilised countries people cannot be confined forcibly into a closed mental institution unless they are clearly a danger to others or to themselves.
To avoid civil rights issues there are very strict limits. Effectively you can only lock up a nutter against his will if he already HAS committed a violent act, in case of being a danger to himself, has tried to commit suicide.
Berlin has a lot of homeless, even though we have a pretty tight social services network, which will provide support. But many of the homeless have mental issues (or are drug addicts) and are not willing to go for treatment. On the other hand the government can´t force them to undergo treatment against their will, so they stay in the streets.
Similarly a dangerous nutter might superficialy appear to be fully functional in society until he cracks and starts killing people. Sometimes you´ll notice somebody with a sadistic abnormality, e.g. if they are noted for torturing animals or act as violent bullies as kids.
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 4777 posts, RR: 6 Reply 10, posted (6 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3010 times:
Or we could just get rid of all the guns and none of it would matter anyways. We would save a ton of money on those disgustingly abusive mental health hospitals too!
Sorry, I had to throw it out there before someone seriously proposed it.
TheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2346 posts, RR: 6 Reply 11, posted (6 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2978 times:
Quoting IMissPiedmont (Reply 6): When I was in high school the solution was simple, you got your ass whipped for being a drama queen if you tried this crap. Quit treating children with kid gloves and they'll straighten up.
Yeah that's true, but not anymore.
I bet you've got more chance of introducing universal health care, before school discipline is an issue again. Too bad.
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 9): To avoid civil rights issues there are very strict limits.
Quite agree MD11
Of course, trying to lock someone up is not easy, especially if no crime has been committed as you have said, however I believe its more complicated than we can imagine, when you take the US political system into account ?
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 10): Or we could just get rid of all the guns and none of it would matter anyways.
You said it, the sooner the better !
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 10): We would save a ton of money on those disgustingly abusive mental health hospitals too!
I doubt that, Mental hospitals are still needed and should be reserved for the NRA members ONLY.
Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16932 posts, RR: 57 Reply 13, posted (6 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2910 times:
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 7): So if this is true, why hadn't the Clinton or Obama Administration do anything to reverse it? It's not like either president didn't/doesn't have the opportunity and the means to make it happen.
Really? They haven't had the opportunity or means? Can you just imagine what the GOP would do if Mr. Obama tried to put this in the federal budget? Can you imagine what Mr. Clinton's GOP Congress could have done?
From my perspective as an American, no it doesn't. I almost never see homeless people in Western European countries. There are some, but they are very rare by our standard.
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12590 posts, RR: 64 Reply 14, posted (6 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2830 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13): Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 7):So if this is true, why hadn't the Clinton or Obama Administration do anything to reverse it? It's not like either president didn't/doesn't have the opportunity and the means to make it happen.
Really? They haven't had the opportunity or means? Can you just imagine what the GOP would do if Mr. Obama tried to put this in the federal budget?
Are you kidding me? They managed to ramrod Obamacare through despite the majority of the public being against it, yet you seriously believe they'd somehow have insurmountable opposition to funding mental heathcare now, AFTER this horrible event that expanded mental healthcare could possibly have prevented?
Stop. Just stop.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13368 posts, RR: 64 Reply 17, posted (6 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2778 times:
I would say that abnormally thinking people are the problem nowadays, who think that killing solves problems. The gun issue is just the symptoms. E.g. a few years ago a teenage girl in Germany brought a hatchet, a selfbuilt flame thrower and several inciendaries (molotov cocktails) to school to carry out a massacre. She was surprised by another girl while she was preparing herself for the attack in the girl´s toilet and attacked this girl with the hatchet, wounding her severely. Still the attacked girl managed to shout for help and the attacker got subdued before she could light her flamethrower.
The reason why she wanted to burn her schoolmates and teachers was because she felt slighted.
No guns involved.
I would even go so far that many of those "Islamists" who tried to set up bombs in public places over here (just one failed to explode in a busy railway station last week), are doing it mostly because of what they feel to be a history of personal insults, just covered up by Islamist ideology (They insult me because I´m a Muslim, not because maybe I´m a jerk).
Again no guns involved, but bombs built from readily available materials.
Guns over here are more the exception due to our gun laws.
As for guns, I´m sitting on the fence.
I like shooting... at cardboard and metal targets (metal plates that fall over when hit). It is good fun and with a bit of practice I could probably get quite good at it. The practice is difficult in Germany because of the legal hoops the gun laws require to get one and because I´m more a solitary person and not a club person, but the law would require me to join a gun club to get supervision by my peers (who in theory should notice if I go off track and alert the authorities).
I did some pistol shoooting on a shooting range during my vacation in the Philippines using my brother-in-law´s (he is a police officer over there) 9mm pistol.
But I don´t get the whole killing issue. Killing is terminal. You can´t unkill somebody or even an animal.
I probably could kill if absolutely necessary to gain food or in defence of myself or others against an armed attacker, but I know if I would kill a person, no matter how justified the reason, I would probably have nightmares for the rest of my life. As for food, as most citizens of industrialised countries, I outcontract the killing necessary for food to somebody else, a professional butcher, and buy the meat in the supermarket.
I think I could hunt, this means killing an animal with which I had no personal contact (once it is dead and it has to be cut up and butchered, it is just meat, yucky in some aspects, but still just meat), but I know that I can´t kill an animal I have a personal realtionship with, e.g. a fram animal which I have raised and fed and which knows me and is trusting me.
I think that most people are like me and have that natural aversion against killing or hurting other humans. Even most soldiers have it, even though they will kill (and risk being killed) as part nof their profession, but they will not enjoy it (actually I noticed that many professional soldiers are among the most pacifist people I know, probably because in a war they´ll be at the sharp end of it).
The problem are those who consider killing to be a normal way to solve problems and who even enjoy maiming or killing people.
I think the current movies and, some don´t like to hear it, violent computer games, play a big role.
As for movies (I´m speaking especially of Hollywood), in the old days the villain was definitely bad and at the end got led away in handcuffs by the brave coppers to face sentencing in the normal course of justice (he might face the gallows, but only after a trial). Today often the hero of the movies is either a cool gangster type (the villain becomes the hero) or the non-gangster hero takes the law in his own hands and at the end kills the villain without police or a court being involved. The message here is if somebody does you injustice you can take the law into your own hands and kill the perpetrator.
The other thing are those violent ego shooter computer games. Most people who play them are sane enough to understand the difference between the computer game and reality. A few though get conditioned to become more violent, especially if they already have a sadistic streak, which just needs a justification to be acted out.
I definitely wouldn´t want to have such a person get his hands of ANYTHING which can be used as a weapon.
Now we come to the next problem, at least in democratic societies, where civil rights are being upheld:
Sometimes people with sadistic urges get noticed early on, but often not acted upon. The example would be the child who tortures and kills pets and acts violent against other children obviously enjoying handing out pain.
But in most cases this only gets noted in retrospect: A person committs a massacre and only later people come out of the woodwork to tell that they knew thius person already since many years and that he has a history of violence.
How can you treat people who show a latency for becoming potential mass killers? How can you sort them out and get them into treatment BEFORE they become a danger to society?
DocLightning is correct, there are people born who have bad brains. They might function for while somehow in society, but something might be the trigger and they act out their urges, becoming a danger (not just in fullscale massacres, but also like the guy in Belgium who kidnapped teenage girls from the street and kept them as slaves for sadistic practices in his basement).
MEL, as for India, while it is not possible to buy a factory made gun in a gunshop that easily, I´m quite sure that there are plenty of illegally made guns around. I have seen quite a few of them in newspaper pictures and on the news. In the Philippines they have their "Paltik", illegally made guns, which might be of varying quality, ranging from crude, suicidical, contraptions made out of gas pipe to high quality handmade copies of factory made guns. AFAIK, the Japanese mafia (guns are severely restricted in Japan) get theirs mainly from such illegal sources in the Philippines.
CometII From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 293 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (6 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2713 times:
The gun issue is not complicated at all to me.
a) Citizens have the right to bear arms.
b) Citizens have the right to self-defense to protect their lives and livelyhood (that includes against government).
c) Citizens DO NOT have the right to possess weapons of mass destruction.
I think that is how things should be defined.
I think almost everyone agrees the 2nd Amendment does not give me the right to possess or use nuclear weapons. If that is the case, then we are already admitting limitations DO exist on the 2nd, so that point becomes moot.
At the point the question becomes "where is the limitation line". I think the line should be drawn at the points weapons can kill multiple amounts of people within 60-90 seconds. That is where the fight will be, but clearly, assault rifles that can unload 30 rounds in 45 second with some training, is a weapon of mass destruction.
Individual citizens have no need for WMD's. As we have seen time and again, they don't save ANYONE's lives. They just kill in mass. Hunters don't use them, and people that deter crime at home rarely if ever do it with such rifles.
To me the issue is clear there. Then the whole health care matter is another key.
soon7x7 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 2813 posts, RR: 14 Reply 19, posted (6 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2658 times:
Quoting CometII (Reply 18): c) Citizens DO NOT have the right to possess weapons of mass destruction.
Problem their...we all do!...Our minds,...Just about any tangible item can be used as a lethal weapon if your mind is creative enough and disturbed enough to use it. Guns, Knives, bombs are just convenient ways to turn radical motives into moments of raged reality.
Think it might go along way in the future when purchasing a firearm, just like pilots, to mandate the purchaser be subject to a medical certificate, and finger printing that demonstrates your physical and emotional stability to own such devices. While I'm not a fan of any gun control it is obvious that new measures are in order. Flying aircraft has its levels of certification because it is inherently dangerous to operate flying machines. So to ensure as best as possible that flying remains safe as possible for all, including those on the ground, guns are dangerous vehicles as well. So possibly different levels of certification may have to exist as well.
It goes with out saying, the criminal or poorly wired individual will still get the gun, still get into a large gathering of people and have his way. Can't prevent it all but we can at least give it an honest go at it.
bmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2090 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (6 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2644 times:
Just a thought, could this be Obama's 9/11 moment?
Remember Bush's big joint-congress speech after the 9/11 attacks? His popularity skyrocketed to 90%.
Obama could make mass gun killings the centerpiece of State of Union speech and his Inauguration speech....whether his popularity skyrockets like Bush after 9/11/01 is unknown...
[Edited 2012-12-17 09:54:23]
The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
Another Day, More Deaths: Two Police Officers Shot And Killed In Kansas
3-Year-Old Accidentally Shoots Himself, Dies...
Gunman At Large After Shooting Victim 4 Times...
Man Shoots Wife, Keeps Cops In Standoff For Hours...
One Person Shot In San Antonio, Gunman Later Shot By Cops...
Woman Shot At Campground...
Woman Shot To Death, Son 'Thought She Was Sleeping'
Joe Scarborough has a change of heart " Enough is enough"
... I guess there is a tipping point after all. It looks like gun blood does have a number where people can only take so much senseless killing. Let's see where it leads. Hearing Scarborough switch up shows promise.
BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13368 posts, RR: 64 Reply 22, posted (6 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2635 times:
Maybe there could be some "Must Issue" licencing involved. E.g. who wants to own a gun legally NEEDS to get a licence and for this he has to under a criminal background check and maybe a psychological evaluation every few years ( a bit similar to what I have to undergo as an airport employee to get my security clearance). If everything is in order the official at e.g. the local police department HAS to issue a licence, he cannot deny it due to personal preferences (what we had in Germany, where the local county clerk refused to issue gun licences to perfectly qualified people because he didn´t like civilians to own guns).
Hardcore criminals will always get guns, but these criminals mostly use the guns against each other (e.g. in turf wars) and innocent bystanders are more or less "collateral damage", who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I think you should say it's not "only a problem with society". There are people with "bad brains" born in every country, including the ones with weak mental health systems like the US, yet we don't see massacres on this scale happening as often. Societal values certainly do play a role in the issue.
Quoting IMissPiedmont (Reply 6): When I was in high school the solution was simple, you got your ass whipped for being a drama queen if you tried this crap. Quit treating children with kid gloves and they'll straighten up.
Cool, so when the kid eventually snaps, the first person he kills will be the person who abused him.
Wow, it's really sad that that is the state of mental healthcare.
Quoting CometII (Reply 18): I think the line should be drawn at the points weapons can kill multiple amounts of people within 60-90 seconds.
I don't think that definition works. You can easily kill a dozen people in 60 seconds with a pistol if you're in crowded place.
Quoting bmacleod (Reply 20): Just a thought, could this be Obama's 9/11 moment?
I don't think so. Bush was working with an external threat that attacked America...this is Americans killing Americans. If anything I think people will find a way to blame Obama.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16932 posts, RR: 57 Reply 24, posted (6 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2578 times:
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 23): I think you should say it's not "only a problem with society". There are people with "bad brains" born in every country, including the ones with weak mental health systems like the US, yet we don't see massacres on this scale happening as often. Societal values certainly do play a role in the issue.
Fair enough. And on that level, I think that the ready availability of firearms is the societal value that allowed someone with a bad brain to do this.
TheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2346 posts, RR: 6 Reply 25, posted (6 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2600 times:
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 16): Why are guns freely available out in the US. esp if the world is filled with many abnormally thinking people.
Quoting CometII (Reply 18): c) Citizens DO NOT have the right to possess weapons of mass destruction.
Woooooo,
What do you call what happened the other day, when 26 of your fellow country men were killed. Mass destruction ?
Quoting CometII (Reply 18): To me the issue is clear there. Then the whole health care matter is another key.
You will NEVER stop people suffering mental health problems, sometimes they can happen incredibly fast and without warning, either to the patient of family and friends.
So how do you control someone who this happens too, and they own a gun (legally) ?
It will never work. Stop hiding behind this (mental health reason? and accept that weapon are dangerous, and when accessed by the wrong people, shit happens !
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 22): Hardcore criminals will always get guns, but these criminals mostly use the guns against each other (e.g. in turf wars) and innocent bystanders are more or less "collateral damage", who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
We know all this MD11, the fact remains though, if guns are as freely available, as they appear to be in the US, then mental patients will somehow be able to gain possession, (through family members who own guns etc...) and do dreadful things, like what we have all just witnessed.
Surly, it would be safer to get as many, if not all guns of the street, (so to speak) then access would be much more difficult for anyone with ill intent,
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 24): Fair enough. And on that level, I think that the ready availability of firearms is the societal value that allowed someone with a bad brain to do this.
Well Doc, appears as though many of your country men are prepared to pay a high price for these "societal values"
Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
soon7x7 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 2813 posts, RR: 14 Reply 27, posted (6 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2611 times:
Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 25): Well Doc, appears as though many of your country men are prepared to pay a high price for these "societal values"
America has done just that throughout its history...Freedom is worth fighting for on every level, That is why the US is a Gun Rich society. Guns are regulated enough here. We are not free to roam the streets with them as in other countries, don't see guns being outlawed in Africa, the Middle East and so on, yet they freely walk around with assault rifles. Why?...apparently to protect themselves from each other.
Let me put it to you this way...No well adjusted, hard working American that has built a business for himself, raised a family, owns a home and feels he has earned his place in society is going to, nor would he feel the need to risk it all just by going out and blowing away individuals because he had a bad day. Guys like that deal with it, they suck it up and hope tomorrow is a better day. On the other hand, those that are wired wrong are capable of anything, apparently. It is not just an American thing. It is just people.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16932 posts, RR: 57 Reply 28, posted (6 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2605 times:
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 27): On the other hand, those that are wired wrong are capable of anything, apparently. It is not just an American thing. It is just people.
And the fact that those people who are wired wrong can just go and get guns is alarming.
It should not be easier to buy a deadly weapon than it is to buy a beer.
TheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2346 posts, RR: 6 Reply 29, posted (6 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2589 times:
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 27): That is why the US is a Gun Rich society.
There must be some BIG differences in our society's then, because Australia is a very "free society"....
And we don't have to be armed to the back teeth to achieve this, why so in America ?
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 27): We are not free to roam the streets with them as in other countries, don't see guns being outlawed in Africa, the Middle East and so on, yet they freely walk around with assault rifles. Why?...apparently to protect themselves from each other.
And do these people, in the countries you mentioned, walk into schools shooting at will, killing innocents, generally speaking, NO they don't ?
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 27): On the other hand, those that are wired wrong are capable of anything, apparently. It is not just an American thing. It is just people.
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 27): On the other hand, those that are wired wrong are capable of anything, apparently. It is not just an American thing. It is just people.
Then why do these shootings mainly occur in the US, on an alarming basis.. ??????????????????
Its an American thing, not a world wide epidemic.
Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
Quite apart from the fact that a teacher stopped the massacre because he had access to a gun, what i find most telling is the killer's note to a friend:
Quote: I am not insane, I am angry. I killed because people like me are mistreated every day. I did this to show society, push us and we will push back. ... All throughout my life, I was ridiculed, always beaten, always hated. Can you, society, truly blame me for what I do? Yes, you will. ... It was not a cry for attention, it was not a cry for help. It was a scream in sheer agony saying that if you can't pry your eyes open, if I can't do it through pacifism, if I can't show you through the displaying of intelligence, then I will do it with a bullet.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16932 posts, RR: 57 Reply 31, posted (6 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2518 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 30): Quite apart from the fact that a teacher stopped the massacre because he had access to a gun, what i find most telling is the killer's note to a friend:
That sounds like insanity to me. Just because he says he's not insane doesn't make it so.
Geezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1467 posts, RR: 2 Reply 32, posted (6 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2501 times:
Listening to, (or reading) all of these "experts" views about how to deal with "mentally disturbed" people by passing "more and more" gun laws............or just "getting all the guns off of the street".......hey, that's a FABULOUS idea ! But I have an even BETTER idea............why don't we just "get all of the mentally disturbed, violent, angry PEOPLE off of the street" ?
Then, all of us honest, hard working, patriotic, peaceful, law abiding people could continue to carry our weapons on our person, and WE would be even safer ! Sounds like a "plan", Right?
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 17): I think the current movies and, some don´t like to hear it, violent computer games, play a big role.
As for movies (I´m speaking especially of Hollywood), in the old days the villain was definitely bad and at the end got led away in handcuffs by the brave coppers to face sentencing in the normal course of justice (he might face the gallows, but only after a trial). Today often the hero of the movies is either a cool gangster type (the villain becomes the hero) or the non-gangster hero takes the law in his own hands and at the end kills the villain without police or a court being involved. The message here is if somebody does you injustice you can take the law into your own hands and kill the perpetrator.
The other thing are those violent ego shooter computer games. Most people who play them are sane enough to understand the difference between the computer game and reality. A few though get conditioned to become more violent, especially if they already have a sadistic streak, which just needs a justification to be acted out.
I definitely wouldn´t want to have such a person get his hands of ANYTHING which can be used as a weapon.
Thank you Jan ! You have just restored my faith in Europeans ! It's pretty much what I've been saying all along; but here's another great idea..........while we're getting all of the violent, angry, mentally disturbed people off of the street, why don't we start getting SERIOUS about a few of the things in this overly permissive, "politically correct" society of ours that tend to make so many people "angry", "disturbed", and "violent" in the first place ? I think Jan has just pointed out a few of the ways we could start doing just that. About 79% of members here want to "ban guns altogether", "make it impossible for "ordinary" people to "get" them, etc, etc, etc.......while we're passing all of the necessary laws to accomplish that, let's also pass a few laws to make it a felony to: produce, distribute, or play, a violent computer game, watch a violent movie, (where people run around shooting each other just because they enjoy shooting people), and let's pass a law to execute anyone found guilty of inflicting pain on, or torturing ANY (warm blooded) animal. And we could also use a law that requires all bad guys in any movie, TV show, or stage play MUST be shot, hung, or drowned before the end of said movie, TV show, or play.
While we're at it, we should probably also pass a law that makes it mandatory to castrate with an old rusty spoon, anyone caught committing "fornication" with a neighbor's wife, mother, girl friend, daughter, Grandmother, poker buddy or female cousin; also, any professional athlete, film "star", TV "actor", or used car salesman who either knowingly, or by "accident", does impregnate ANY female
not his lawful spouse, and as soon as we get that law implemented, it should be pointed out that, any second reoccurrence of failure to obey this statute will be subject to mandatory castration, (employing the afore-mentioned old rusty spoon method.)
By taking these steps, we will have gone a long way towards removing many of the causatory reasons behind much of this violent, angry behavior, and in so doing, will obviously save many lives.
Murderers Don't Have To Have Guns To Murder
If we do not note a marked improvement in the behavior of all of these violent, angry individuals, we may also need to pass a law banning the production, transportation, or use of all nitrate-based fertilizers, kitchen matches, cigar and cigarette lighters, base ball bats, and box trucks.
Charley
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, RR: 47 Reply 33, posted (6 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2497 times:
These over the top replies are getting ridiculous and aren't convincing anyone
Quoting Geezer (Reply 32): About 79% of members here want to "ban guns altogether", "make it impossible for "ordinary" people to "get" them, etc, etc, etc
Almost every single person on this board is NOT advocating "banning guns altogether." That is a lie. Even the European on this board talk of hunting and shooting clubs... listen to what they are saying
Quoting Geezer (Reply 32): hile we're passing all of the necessary laws to accomplish that, let's also pass a few laws to make it a felony to: produce, distribute, or play, a violent computer game, watch a violent movie,
Quoting Geezer (Reply 32): While we're at it, we should probably also pass a law that makes it mandatory to castrate with an old rusty spoon
This is ridiculous. No one is advocating anything like this and you know it
Quoting Geezer (Reply 32): Murderers Don't Have To Have Guns To Murder
Again, no one is debating this. What we are (or at least I am debating) is why a bunch of people are ONE HUNDRED PERCENT against ALL gun control measures? There are measures (look at Mir's posts) that will not really inconvenience legal gun owners but will undoubtedly keep more guns out of the wrong hands. As "responsible" gun owners, there is a responsibility to ensure others are responsible with them. I'm not advocating a gun ban, but this free for all approach is not working, and NO ONE can deny that. No one can deny the US' higher gun violence, even if we make complex excuses for it (as I have been guilty of doing in the past, I admit)
Once again, I feel like I'm arguing on the "other side" of the issue because of the inability of "my side" to compromise even a millimeter. I'm a gun owner, and I'm for more gun control, and that shouldn't be such a bizarre thing. /rant
WestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1345 posts, RR: 7 Reply 34, posted (6 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2488 times:
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 27): We are not free to roam the streets with them
You are in some states. CCW laws are essentially the freedom to "roam the streets with them" if you qualify.
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 27): No well adjusted, hard working American that has built a business for himself, raised a family, owns a home and feels he has earned his place in society is going to, nor would he feel the need to risk it all just by going out and blowing away individuals because he had a bad day.
Not true. People, even the well-adjusted ones, can quickly develop psychosis well into their 20's or 30's without having exhibited previous symptoms. Although very rare, people suffering from schizophrenia or other forms of psychosis can act violently. It's ridiculous to believe that just because someone is intelligent and conforms to social norms that they can't suffer some mental defect.
My father and I are a fairly good example of this. We are both "well-adjusted" men (he is 54, I'm 23) who are relatively successful in our respective stages in life, yet we both suffer from crippling Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Having a conversation with either of us around the office you would never suspect that sometimes we can barely function due to our irrational anxiety. I don't get to choose when I have an anxiety attack no less than people with more severe mental illnesses choose when they manifest into a violent episode.
Luckily, it appears schools are taking a more proactive approach to identifying these individuals. In the five years I've attended my university, I've noticed more resources available to students who may be suffering from some mental issue, be it exam stress, ADHD, or something more severe. Also, our on-campus clinic is great for making sure no student leaves the office wondering. They'll do preliminary tests right on the spot before sending you to see a mental health professional. This is all on top of the endless supply of literature made available to us to educate the student body on mental health.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 28): It should not be easier to buy a deadly weapon than it is to buy a beer.
I agree with this mostly because 21 is a ridiculous drinking age...but that's for another thread.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 30): what i find most telling is the killer's note to a friend:
I have to agree with Doc. Just because he says he's not insane, doesn't make it so, nor does it mean he's not suffering from other issues that sane people could have.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16932 posts, RR: 57 Reply 35, posted (6 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2492 times:
Quoting Geezer (Reply 32): Listening to, (or reading) all of these "experts" views about how to deal with "mentally disturbed" people by passing "more and more" gun laws............or just "getting all the guns off of the street".......hey, that's a FABULOUS idea ! But I have an even BETTER idea............why don't we just "get all of the mentally disturbed, violent, angry PEOPLE off of the street" ?
ZOMG SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!
Do you know who closed the asylums that had the crazy schizophrenics off the street? Ronald Reagan's administration saw to that. Why? Because government is never the answer.
...except the most mentally ill have no jobs and so can't have insurance and so who else is going to provide their asylum?
So yeah, I agree re-open the asylums.
And frankly, until you have actually worked with someone who is truly mentally ill, you have no business spouting nonsense about how violent games and movies do this. NO sane person could be made to shoot up an elementary school just by watching violent games and movies.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, RR: 47 Reply 36, posted (6 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2480 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 35): And frankly, until you have actually worked with someone who is truly mentally ill, you have no business spouting nonsense about how violent games and movies do this. NO sane person could be made to shoot up an elementary school just by watching violent games and movies.
I agree... I play some war games but I'm the type of person to look down when I walk so I don't step on any bugs.
My big question is how do you find these people?
And another question, may work "against" me as a gun owner, but would the mental competency tests that some claim to be the answer to gun violence detect some of these shooters? I mean, if you interviewed the CT shooter, would it be as cut and dry as "oh he was talking to his dead friend in the mothership, he's crazy" or would it be "he seems kind of like a loner, but I don't see anything that wrong with him, let him buy a gun?" (I only used that as an example, I know he took his mom's gun and wasn't old enough to buy handguns.)
Even as a gun owner, I am not convinced that mental tests and "arming more people" will have near the desired effect. One can always fake a mental test (maybe,) get a gun, find and kill or totally avoid a single resource officer, and wipe out a lot of people before the police (or even anyone armed nearby) could come and intervene
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7879 posts, RR: 22 Reply 37, posted (6 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2443 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 31): That sounds like insanity to me. Just because he says he's not insane doesn't make it so.
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 34): I have to agree with Doc. Just because he says he's not insane, doesn't make it so, nor does it mean he's not suffering from other issues that sane people could have.
Forget the first sentence. There is nothing in there that says insanity to me. Insanity is when voices in your head tell you to do something. This guy lashed out because he felt slighted and wronged, and felt like taking revenge. That's not insanity. He planned it out. He knew that it was wrong, but felt justified because of the slights he suffered.
Definitely not insane in my opinion, and the message could very well have been written by the CT killer, from what I know.
People like that don't need treatment as much as they need to be identified and kept away from the rest of us, frankly.
TheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2346 posts, RR: 6 Reply 38, posted (6 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2432 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 36): And another question, may work "against" me as a gun owner, but would the mental competency tests that some claim to be the answer to gun violence detect some of these shooters? I mean, if you interviewed the CT shooter, would it be as cut and dry as "oh he was talking to his dead friend in the mothership, he's crazy" or would it be "he seems kind of like a loner, but I don't see anything that wrong with him, let him buy a gun?" (I only used that as an example, I know he took his mom's gun and wasn't old enough to buy handguns.)
Hi DeltaMD90
What happens in this situation then.
News laws are introduced and everyone who applies for a "new" gun license must sit and pass the Mental competency test.
Whats to say that Mr Jack Spratt, passed this test with flying colors, however, he was involved in a mental breakdown some years later (because of a failed marriage) The was also some domestic violence and police were called at the time
What happens next ?
Is this guy to be considered "unstable", because he has suffered a breakdown ?
Who polices this system and how ?
On the surface of it and just thinking about it lightly, it wont work and can never work, there would be just to many if's and but's
Not to even mention, the army of bureaucrats needed to operate such a system.
What are your thoughts?
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 37): People like that don't need treatment as much as they need to be identified and kept away from the rest of us, frankly.
Yes, but only after you have taken all his guns off him though !
[Edited 2012-12-17 18:54:34]
Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
I think either way, a bunch of common sense measures should go into place. I don't see why even an NRA member would be against some of these measures. As far as costs, minus keeping a registry (which could probably be paid by a fee) I wouldn't expect the state to pay for a gun safety class, pay for a gun owner's safe, etc.
At the end of the day, I'm confident it will cut down gun crime. Eliminate it? No, look at Norway, that tragedy was worse than anything in America (or the world, even if it was not as frequent.) I see it as a good starting point and compromise. I know it's not quite apples to apples, but many here to say (referring to post-9/11 actions) "don't strip our rights, there will always be terror, but let's not ruin _____ for the legitimate people" are often the first to say "gun ownership and recreation is huge in the US, and almost every gun owner is safe, but let's let the minority ruin it for everyone."
Again, apples to kinda oranges, I know we have a gun problem and I think there could be a lot of good (necessary) measures put into place to severely reduce gun crime but allow the bulk of good Americans to enjoy it recreationally.
What if the mom had the guns locked away, securely, in a safe? I'm not gonna kid anyone and suggest he'd go on a stabbing spree, ban all knives, try and run crowds over, ban all cars, or pull a Timothy McVeigh and bomb the school (do I even need to respond to that? McVeigh killed WAY more than any shooting spree did and we don't see repeats all the time.) Back to my point, a simple, very effective gun measure could be safes... not required, but if in place, I think there would be 20some more people around for this Christmas
All of us may not agree to every gun measure, but I cannot fathom how requiring gun safety classes or a heavy duty safe is "infringing on rights." If anything, it's the responsibility EVERY gun owner should have
soon7x7 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 2813 posts, RR: 14 Reply 40, posted (6 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2409 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 28): And the fact that those people who are wired wrong can just go and get guns is alarming.
In this case the kids mom blew it...she knew her son had issues so she teaches him to shoot guns?...see where that got her?. That was her shortcoming, no one else's. She should have had a gun safe out of his reach. And to your argument...on the flip side far more rational individuals go out and obtain guns and never cause a problem...in fact they treat them with regard. Funny, ...Mayor Bloomberg is jumping up and down over gun control...bet he carries!
Ever have anyone point a loaded gun at your face?...I had it happen...total stranger walked into a bar I was shooting pool at and he aimed a double barrel right at me...the bouncer grabbed it, forced it up and the gun discharged, blew out ceiling plaster...we piled on the guy. Happened in famous Amityville. I NEVER once thought guns should be banned after that. I did however feel real lucky.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 28): It should not be easier to buy a deadly weapon than it is to buy a beer.
I agree with you here...as I earlier stated, as in obtaining a pilots rating, new gun owners should be required to take a medical, generally to be evaluated for emotional fitness, finger printing and a crash course on proper gun handling. In other words, for what ever reason you feel the need for a gun, prove it and earn it. If it is determined you are not of sound mind or any other reason, your application is denied. Renewable every 2 years. I agree something must be done but the reality will still remain...as long as gun manufacturers are machining guns...the crazies will always have access to them.
TheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2346 posts, RR: 6 Reply 41, posted (6 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2389 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 39): At the end of the day, I'm confident it will cut down gun crime.
I hope your right, these mass killings just have to stop. A whole generation of kids are growing up thinking this is just the "norm"
I doubt that you would want your kid thinking along those lines, or the friends he hangs out with.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 39): (or the world, even if it was not as frequent.)
Yes, I agree. The crux is, that its happening to frequently in the US. Norway was horrible, and shocked the world. Lets see if it becomes a real problem for them, like you guys have to put up with.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 39): Again, apples to kinda oranges, I know we have a gun problem and I think there could be a lot of good (necessary) measures put into place to severely reduce gun crime but allow the bulk of good Americans to enjoy it recreationally.
In a perfect world we live not, but sometimes everyone pays the price for a few morons.
Bit like at school, when one kid keeps talking and mucking up in class, the teacher threatens to hold the entire class back, if he doesn't pull his head in. Not fair always, but that's the way it is.
If the US has such a problems with mental health issues within its society, then I'd say, it would be way safer if the whole class was kept in, and as I said above, its not always fair but that's the price we pay to live in a civilized society
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 39): All of us may not agree to every gun measure, but I cannot fathom how requiring gun safety classes or a heavy duty safe is "infringing on rights." If anything, it's the responsibility EVERY gun owner should have
Yeah well, that constitution of yours, as good as you all say it is, IMHO needs improving, so everyone can "evolve" and move on, not continue to live in the dark ages.
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 40): In this case the kids mom blew it...she knew her son had issues so she teaches him to shoot guns?...see where that got her?.
Umm
Seems from what Ive read about her and the family, they ALL had plenty of issues !
The mother was a fruit cake. She was "stockpiling" food etc because she believed the end of the world or the US was imminent. NUTS !
But yet, under your system, she had a massive arsenal of weapons, and got them without problem or raising anyone's eye lid !
Simply undeliverable.
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 40): Ever have anyone point a loaded gun at your face?
So, is that supposed to make us feel easier about the topic, sure, give guns to anyone whos' been through what you have and the world would be a safer place.
BTW, if you had been armed at the time this occurred, what would you have done in the situation, considering he already had the gun in your face ??
Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
Thousands of dead bodies every year say otherwise.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 39): I don't see why even an NRA member would be against some of these measures.
The NRA will oppose any and all proposed restrictions on guns, even those sensible ones that have lots of popular support, because they have built their brand around the delusional philosophy that any attempt to further regulate gun ownership, no matter how minor, is equivalent to trying to ban all guns everywhere forever. If they give in on that, they will destroy their own image. Not only that, but their constant fearmongering helps gun dealers and gun manufacturers, who have seen a great increase in sales from people who think the government is going to take all their guns and that they need to stockpile now. So supporting any increased regulation would make them look weak and would hurt their patrons - they won't do it.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
stealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5447 posts, RR: 48 Reply 43, posted (6 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2324 times:
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 27): Freedom is worth fighting for on every level, That is why the US is a Gun Rich society
Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 29): There must be some BIG differences in our society's then, because Australia is a very "free society"....
And we don't have to be armed to the back teeth to achieve this, why so in America ?
I think, and it is only my opinion**, that many Americans have difficulty separating this concept of Freedom and the right to bear arms.
There are many forms of Freedom, the freedom to expect your 6 y/o to come home from school, the freedom to be able to enjoy a movie (however violent) at a local cinema, the freedom to enjoy a college education or a hospital visit without the fear of violent and unprovoked attack... those are freedoms worth striving for.
Am I naive enough to think gun control will work.. that genie has well and truly escaped.
Major weapons manufacturers like The Freedom Group targeting "a younger demographic" that might be a course of action to reconsider.
A viral meme attributed to Morgan Freeman but allegedly by a guy named Mark from Vancouver made a valid point... media coverage.
Many of these events happen when a social outcast, feeling the only way to be somebody is to create an event that is so horrific they become some kind of celebrity.. who knows the names of the victims of Columbine or Virginia tech or Port Arthur?.. the perp becomes the "hero"
Perhaps society would be better served if coverage of such events focused on the victims and didn't highlight the social outcasts and losers that commit the crime.
** I have travelled extensively and lived in the USA so this is not just a distant view.
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2523 posts, RR: 35 Reply 44, posted (6 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2289 times:
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 40): I NEVER once thought guns should be banned after that.
Only the pro gunners are talking about ban. The rest of us are talking about gun control.
Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 41): I hope your right, these mass killings just have to stop.
The mass killings must stop but the sad thing is that they are just the tip of the iceberg. What really needs to stop are all the daily killings adding up to multiple times the mass killings.
Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 41): Yeah well, that constitution of yours, as good as you all say it is, IMHO needs improving, so everyone can "evolve" and move on, not continue to live in the dark ages.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
And a complete one off never likely to happen again event, which could have easily been prevented had the police following up all the information they were given about ABB.
Quoting cmf (Reply 44): Only the pro gunners are talking about ban. The rest of us are talking about gun control.
It's always interesting how control and ban appear to confuse the pro gun folks. Maybe it's because a lot of the rabid pro gunners are of limited intelligence, the ones you tend to see on tv always look like they were the spawn of inbred back country folks, they all tend to be white as well.
Just out of interest has there ever been a non white mass murderer in the US?
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7879 posts, RR: 22 Reply 46, posted (6 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2251 times:
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 45): Just out of interest has there ever been a non white mass murderer in the US?
Of course. Remember the famous sniper killings after 911 around DC? I recall a mass killing in NY State a couple of years ago where the shooters' name was Wong. That's without doing any research - I don't know if there is a database that sorts them out by race - might be considered racist...
soon7x7 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 2813 posts, RR: 14 Reply 47, posted (6 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2244 times:
Quoting stealthz (Reply 43): Many of these events happen when a social outcast, feeling the only way to be somebody is to create an event that is so horrific they become some kind of celebrity.. who knows the names of the victims of Columbine or Virginia tech or Port Arthur?.. the perp becomes the "hero"
Perhaps society would be better served if coverage of such events focused on the victims and didn't highlight the social outcasts and losers that commit the crime.
I don't disagree...Some individuals crave the notoriety via the press, but some are just nuts, regardless of the press. There are good people and definitely, evil people. As far as the PRESS in the case of Sandy Hook. They should do the families a favor and go home and leave these people be. The town, their lives, the school, this holiday season, now all has different meaning. The press should forego their appetite for ratings and leave this one be.
roswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 576 posts, RR: 1 Reply 48, posted (6 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2236 times:
The Virginia Tech massacre, the deadliest in U.S. history, was committed by an Asian man. The D.C. Snipers were two black guys. Thanks for trying to bring race into a discussion where it has no place though. All races have committed these horrible acts.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2523 posts, RR: 35 Reply 49, posted (6 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2230 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46): Of course. Remember the famous sniper killings after 911 around DC?
Per US definitions that wasn't mass murder. It takes that 4 people are killed "without cooling off period" between murders. One reason why there are less mass murders than people think there are.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13368 posts, RR: 64 Reply 50, posted (6 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2210 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 44): Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 40):
I NEVER once thought guns should be banned after that.
Only the pro gunners are talking about ban. The rest of us are talking about gun control.
Actually not. E.g. in Germany relatives of the victims of a school masascre are currently sueing the German government in the constitutional court. They demand a total ban of guns in civilian hands.
Even then, in the case they were victims of, several laws have been broken by the legal owner of the gun used in the massacre, which allowed the deranged teenage son of the owner (a licenced hunter and target shooter) to get hold of his father´s gun. Especially the owner did not lock his gun away in a safe, with the ammunition kept locked away seperately, as the law says, but kept his loaded pistol, together with some spare magazines, in a wardrobe in his bedroom "for defence against burglars". The law is very clear on this matter: Licensed gun owners in Germany are responsible that their guns never get out of their control. They can let somebody unlicensed shoot with them on a shooting range, or let them handle them, but they always have to be present to supervise them. If they cannot be physically present, the gun and the ammunition HAVE to be locked away in an approved safe.
This is swhy the father was sued (and AFAIK sentenced ) for being an associate to manslaughter.
Quoting roswell41 (Reply 48): Thanks for trying to bring race into a discussion where it has no place though.
Apart from Virginia Tech, the Binghamton shootings (both Aisans), Fort Hood (an Arab) and Mark Essex (only black mass murder I could find) all the other perps of mass shootings in North American appear to have been angry white guys, I wonder why.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, RR: 47 Reply 52, posted (6 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2191 times:
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 51): Apart from Virginia Tech, the Binghamton shootings (both Aisans), Fort Hood (an Arab) and Mark Essex (only black mass murder I could find) all the other perps of mass shootings in North American appear to have been angry white guys, I wonder why.
Assuming white people commit more mass murders on average, what is you point?
roswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 576 posts, RR: 1 Reply 53, posted (6 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2183 times:
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 51): Quoting roswell41 (Reply 48):The D.C. Snipers were two black guys. They didn't commit a massacre.
Only killed 10 people. Call it what you will.
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 51): Apart from Virginia Tech, the Binghamton shootings (both Aisans), Fort Hood (an Arab) and Mark Essex (only black mass murder I could find) all the other perps of mass shootings in North American appear to have been angry white guys, I wonder why.
I wonder what your point is? White people make up the majority of people in the United States (~79%). You would expect that criminal activity would mirror the demographics in the country. Surprisingly, it doesn't. Despite being only 12% of the U.S. population, blacks are responsible for 37.4% of all murders according to the FBI http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/off...information/data/shrtable_03.html.
Whites are responsible for 33%.
Alas, we know 19 foreign born muslims are responsible for the largest mass murder in US history, slaughtering nearly 3000 people. So again, I wonder what your point is? Care to elaborate?
Insanity is a general term that covers several mental disorders that make a person act out against what are considered social norms. "Hearing voices" is a symptom of schizophrenia or psychosis, which is only a few of the disorders that fall under what is generally accepted as insane. With that said, there are plenty of mental disorders any of these school shooters could have had that didn't fall under your classification.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 39): I don't see why even an NRA member would be against some of these measures.
This is part of the problem. Every time anything happens that someone doesn't like in the US, they wave their flag and cry that "they're infringing on my rights as an American!"..."You deleted my comment on Facebook, that's infringing on my right to free speech! You're un-American!", so on and so forth. This attitude is starting to bleed over the border into Canada, and it's rather annoying.
Quoting Mir (Reply 42): Not only that, but their constant fearmongering helps gun dealers and gun manufacturers, who have seen a great increase in sales from people who think the government is going to take all their guns and that they need to stockpile now.
On the news yesterday they were discussing that two days after the CT shooting gun sales spiked across the US.
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 50): Actually not. E.g. in Germany relatives of the victims of a school masascre are currently sueing the German government in the constitutional court. They demand a total ban of guns in civilian hands.
Those people suing are a very small subset of the anti-gun crowd, and their motivation comes from a place of hurt, not a place of morals. An overwhelming majority of anti-gun people just want tighter controls, not an outright ban.
Quoting roswell41 (Reply 53): Only killed 10 people. Call it what you will.
I think the accepted definition for a massacre is that all people are killed in the same event, whereas the DC sniper shootings were spread out over a couple months, so that technically makes them serial killers. I believe that's what KiwiRob was getting at.
Probably from the parents, who should lose their "right to bear arms" immediately and for life. It is obvious that a lot of people who own guns in this country are simply not responsible enough.
Quote: Authorities say a Utah sixth-grader caught with a gun at school told administrators he brought the weapon to defend himself in case of an attack similar to the mass shooting last week in Newtown, Connecticut.
Kid was just doing what some posters here think is every US citizens god given right to bear arms to defend themselves, surely you can't see anything wrong with that can you?
soon7x7 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 2813 posts, RR: 14 Reply 59, posted (6 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2102 times:
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 45): But you are, many states now allow carry, if that's not roaming the streets armed I'm a flying pig.
Don't know of one state in the US where you could walk down a main thouroughfare or side street brandishing an AK47 without some official challenging your actions. Even the most liberal of liberals would have issue with that.
KiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 5417 posts, RR: 3 Reply 60, posted (6 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2096 times:
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 59): Don't know of one state in the US where you could walk down a main thouroughfare or side street brandishing an AK47 without some official challenging your actions. Even the most liberal of liberals would have issue with that.
I'm guessing states which allow open carry you could.
Quote: Categories of law
Today in the United States, the laws vary from state to state regarding open carry of firearms. The categories are defined as follows:
Permissive open carry states
A state has passed full preemption of all firearms laws. They permit open carry to all non-prohibited citizens without permit or license. Open carry is lawful on foot and in a motor vehicle.
Licensed open carry states
A state has passed full preemption of all firearms laws. They permit open carry of a handgun to all non-prohibited citizens once they have been issued a permit or license. Open carry of a handgun is lawful on foot and in a motor vehicle.
Anomalous open carry states
In these states, open carry of a handgun is generally lawful, but the state may lack preemption or there may be other significant restrictions. The limitations and/or lack of pre-emption may mean that certain areas of these states are, in their judicial system and law enforcement societies, not very friendly towards the practice, although this is not true in all of these states.
Non-permissive open carry states
In these states, open carry of a handgun is not lawful, or is only lawful under such a limited set of circumstances that public carry is prohibited. Such limited circumstances may include when hunting, or while traveling to/from hunting locations, while on property controlled by the person carrying, or for lawful self-defense.
Rural open carry states
In these states, open carry is generally permitted only in unincorporated areas of counties where population densities are below statutorily-defined thresholds, and local authorities have enacted ordinances permitting open carry in such jurisdictions (California). As such, these states are also regarded as Non-Permissive open carry states.
TheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2346 posts, RR: 6 Reply 61, posted (6 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2086 times:
Quoting lewis (Reply 57): Probably from the parents, who should lose their "right to bear arms" immediately and for life.
I suppose that's most likely.
But if I was the law, I'd lock those 2 parents up for a VERY VERY long time, like 20 years !
Quoting lewis (Reply 57): It is obvious that a lot of people who own guns in this country are simply not responsible enough.
Then that in itself, is reason to get ALL gun off the street. You cant have some responsible fire are owners and not others, don't work like that !
Its all or nothing in my book .
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 60): I'm guessing states which allow open carry you could.
What a load of crap, all the different rules/laws from one state to another.... what a joke. who the hell can possible police all this, its impossible.
Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16932 posts, RR: 57 Reply 62, posted (6 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2088 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 37): Forget the first sentence. There is nothing in there that says insanity to me. Insanity is when voices in your head tell you to do something.
Your definition of insanity varies from that which is currently accepted by professionals. Admittedly, hearing voices counts as insanity, but insanity is not limited to that at all. Homicidal ideation in general qualifies one as mentally unsound.
lewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3448 posts, RR: 5 Reply 63, posted (6 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2087 times:
Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 61):
Then that in itself, is reason to get ALL gun off the street. You cant have some responsible fire are owners and not others, don't work like that !
I wouldn't go so far, in general I have a problem with legislation that results in spoiling the "fun" (maybe not the best word but you get me) for the majority because some people cannot be trusted. There are ways to deal with those people, as long as the rules are set and followed. Take the 11-year old story above, if the parents or the owner of the gun knew that they would never be able to own a gun again or that they would go to jail for a very long time if their weapons were taken/used by someone else, especially a minor, then they would have probably skipped getting a gun altogether, since the risk would just be too high for them.
I will copy some people who always claim that flying on a plane is not a right but a privilege that carries responsibility, the same should be true for gun ownership. Here is your gun, but kiss your life goodbye if it ends up in the wrong hands.
roswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 576 posts, RR: 1 Reply 64, posted (6 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2052 times:
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 55): Just wondering why it appears to be a white guy thing to do. Serial killers also appear to be mostly white.
So being a gangster would be a 'black' thing to do? Being good at math is an 'Asian' thing to do? No one commented on your statement, but you're comment is blatantly racist. Present some facts or take your racist opinions somewhere else.
roswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 576 posts, RR: 1 Reply 65, posted (6 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2051 times:
Quoting lewis (Reply 63): I will copy some people who always claim that flying on a plane is not a right but a privilege that carries responsibility, the same should be true for gun ownership. Here is your gun, but kiss your life goodbye if it ends up in the wrong hands.
As has been said ad nauseum, gun rights cannot be lumped in with any privilege. Gun rights are as sacred as the right to worship your faith or no faith of choice, it is equal to the right to free speech, equal to the right to vote, etc. Being convicted of a felony in the US takes away both your right to vote and your right to bear arms. That along with mental illness are the only two ways to deny them their God-given rights. Remember, the rights in the US Bill of Rights are not granted by the government, but from a higher power (God, nature's god, etc.).
Says who? I don't know if you own guns or not, but don't you agree it's a HUGE responsibility? If you are incompetent, I don't want you near the things.
Us gun owners have done a pretty bad job policing ourselves. The fact that there are more than "0" accidents shows our failures... I don't believe in "accidental shootings..." if you show an iota of responsibility, accidents don't happen. Then we allow madmen to own guns? Uneducated people (uneducated on how to handle them)? Have such little accountability for these deadly weapons?
And then many add that they will KILL before they'd give up their guns... and we wonder why no one wants us to own anything?
roswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 576 posts, RR: 1 Reply 67, posted (6 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2025 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 66): Says who? I don't know if you own guns or not, but don't you agree it's a HUGE responsibility? If you are incompetent, I don't want you near the things.
Us gun owners have done a pretty bad job policing ourselves. The fact that there are more than "0" accidents shows our failures... I don't believe in "accidental shootings..." if you show an iota of responsibility, accidents don't happen. Then we allow madmen to own guns? Uneducated people (uneducated on how to handle them)? Have such little accountability for these deadly weapons?
And then many add that they will KILL before they'd give up their guns... and we wonder why no one wants us to own anything?
Of course owning and using firearms is a large responsibility. So is speaking your mind and voting. All have serious implications if done wrongly including violence or injury (reference the example of yelling fire in a theater, etc).
I do not support government mandated training/testing for simply owning a firearm. That is akin to a 'poll test' whereby illiterate or undereducated people were not allowed to vote if they couldn't pass a test. These tests are used to disenfranchise people from their civil rights. For people to carry firearms on their person, I do not oppose basic gun handling training.
'Madmen' are not allowed to purchase firearms already. The ACLU and their political allies have made it difficult to obtain medical records of mentally ill people so doing this has been made more difficult. Reform is needed to be able to add these diagnosed people to the registry. When/if they are cured, they should be removed from the list. We have the technology to do this.
I do not support any type of further gun registration. The ATF can already trace serial numbers and that is sufficient. Any other registry is simply a pretense to confiscation and something which must be opposed with vigor.
The bottom line is that no law can keep you totally safe. Humans are a violent species. At least give all of the good guys the means to defend themselves from the depraved. Let logic rule and not emotion.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, RR: 47 Reply 68, posted (6 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2018 times:
Quoting roswell41 (Reply 67): That is akin to a 'poll test' whereby illiterate or undereducated people were not allowed to vote if they couldn't pass a test. These tests are used to disenfranchise people from their civil rights
You say this, but then you say this:
Quoting roswell41 (Reply 67): For people to carry firearms on their person, I do not oppose basic gun handling training.
Quoting roswell41 (Reply 67): When/if they are cured, they should be removed from the list.
How is that not contradicting yourself? You originally say there should be no "test" then put conditions on owning a gun
Quoting roswell41 (Reply 67): The ATF can already trace serial numbers and that is sufficient.
Not if I sell my gun to Billy Bob
Quoting roswell41 (Reply 67): The bottom line is that no law can keep you totally safe. Humans are a violent species. At least give all of the good guys the means to defend themselves from the depraved. Let logic rule and not emotion.
Logic? I've recently broken from the illogical gun mantra. Protecting myself from the government? Do I really fear the Red Coats? Banning guns will stop violence? Well, I'm not advocating banning guns, nor am I suggesting even the most extreme measures will prevent gun crime. Don't you think that preventing incompetent people (including people refusing to learn how to handle a DEADLY weapon) or mentally insane people from owning a firearm is a reasonable step? What are your arguments against it? Do you want:
1. Untrained idiots handling guns? The same guys who "haha, point a gun at my friend, I checked to make sure it's unloaded, I think..." BOOOM
2. Insane people handling guns? "The government has tracking software in my head! I'm gonna kill people to get my message out!"
If you want either of these people handling guns, I don't know what to say. Preventing these obviously unstable people from having guns can only lead to good, even if only a few are weeded out... a few less deaths unnecessarily is great.
What about requiring guns to be locked up? Is that really preventing us from owning them? Or does that just keep them safe in the event of a break in that NOBODY anticipates? Or does that allow your child that you swear "wouldn't use your guns in anger" just like the other parents of gunmen thought?
I own 9 guns... if it is between your carefree attitude or banning them altogether (which almost no one is proposing) I'd give up my guns which I never used violently... I'd rather give them up then oppose the most common sense laws that make no sense to oppose. Please, tell me where my thinking has gone astray...
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7879 posts, RR: 22 Reply 69, posted (6 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2010 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 62): Your definition of insanity varies from that which is currently accepted by professionals. Admittedly, hearing voices counts as insanity, but insanity is not limited to that at all. Homicidal ideation in general qualifies one as mentally unsound.
You can be mentally unstable, or have some form mental illness, and not be insane. The whole reason that there exists an insanity plea is there are some people who really don't know what they are doing - they are gaga, out there. But then you have sociopaths and psychopaths, who generally DO know what they are doing - they plan it out, and try to keep it hidden from others, or go for the big show.
Want to stop these mass killings? I'd make a bet that if it were completely prohibited for mass murders to be the subject of news coverage, the rate of such occurance would drop by 95% or more. These guys do it in large part because they they want to be talked about.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19813 posts, RR: 56 Reply 70, posted (6 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2011 times:
Quoting roswell41 (Reply 67): I do not support government mandated training/testing for simply owning a firearm. That is akin to a 'poll test' whereby illiterate or undereducated people were not allowed to vote if they couldn't pass a test. These tests are used to disenfranchise people from their civil rights.
The difference, of course, is that people who don't pass poll tests aren't putting others in mortal danger. I'm not just talking about murder either - guns can be dangerous to those who wield them as well, and to those around them. They're dangerous tools, and it's quite common to require training before people can legally use dangerous tools.
Quoting roswell41 (Reply 67): I do not support any type of further gun registration. The ATF can already trace serial numbers and that is sufficient. Any other registry is simply a pretense to confiscation and something which must be opposed with vigor.
Law-abiding gun owners should have no reason to oppose gun registration, since there would be no cause to confiscate their guns. The only people who would be in danger of having their guns confiscated would be those who don't abide by the laws (which means they're not really responsible enough to be owning a gun anyway).
We make people register cars and nobody bats an eye. There is no absolutely reason that gun registration should not be mandatory.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
WestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1345 posts, RR: 7 Reply 72, posted (6 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1996 times:
Quoting roswell41 (Reply 65): That along with mental illness are the only two ways to deny them their God-given rights. Remember, the rights in the US Bill of Rights are not granted by the government, but from a higher power (God, nature's god, etc.).
I checked just to make sure, and...nope, can't find anything about god saying you have the right to own a gun. It actually doesn't say anything about the United States of America either. Ain't that funny...
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 66): I don't believe in "accidental shootings..." if you show an iota of responsibility, accidents don't happen.
What about the controversy surrounding the Remington 700? Even though it was a design flaw (so I read), the shootings themselves were accidental because there's no way the owners could have known that.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 66): And then many add that they will KILL before they'd give up their guns... and we wonder why no one wants us to own anything?
"This is why we can't have nice things!"
Quoting roswell41 (Reply 67): That is akin to a 'poll test' whereby illiterate or undereducated people were not allowed to vote if they couldn't pass a test.
When has a vote ever killed someone?
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 68): Quoting roswell41 (Reply 67):
The ATF can already trace serial numbers and that is sufficient.
Not if I sell my gun to Billy Bob
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 69): Want to stop these mass killings? I'd make a bet that if it were completely prohibited for mass murders to be the subject of news coverage, the rate of such occurance would drop by 95% or more. These guys do it in large part because they they want to be talked about.
You make a decent point there. Where I'm from, the news isn't allowed to report on student suicides because they fear it may prompt other students who are on the edge to go ahead and hurt themselves.
YVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2119 posts, RR: 0 Reply 73, posted (6 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1994 times:
Quoting roswell41 (Reply 65): God-given rights. Remember, the rights in the US Bill of Rights are not granted by the government, but from a higher power (God, nature's god, etc.).
Please.... the same God who gave commandments which include "do not kill" right?
I see the identification and treatment of mental health as a slippery slope too. Not to say it is not to be done, but very much far easier said than done. I know several people with mental health issues, as far as I know they are not in any way murderous in intent (much the opposite actually) and how you treat them is a very delicate matter, so there is no right answer for an across the board solution, each case is very different and you cant just barge in and deal with their issues for them.
There is also a risk of people now "shopping" particularly teens going through the fairly normal quirks, moods, lack of confidence and seemingly irrational behaviour of adolescence. I know a few of these too and they check the boxes for quite a few of the signs these "experts" are telling us to look out for in our acquaintances and neighbors. Its also a very delicate subject to tackle. By saying "You were cruel to the cat the other day, do you feel like murdering someone?" is hardly going to ascertain anything.
At the end of the day I think a lot of it comes down to parenting and upbringing. As not yet a parent myself, I feel unqualified to speak about this but if you look at a lot of these cases, you will find there are issues in the home, divided marriages, family bitterness and instability, all of which should be found in a normal, functional, loving home and family circle which I was priveledged to have for the most part.
Say what you want about old fashioned morals - which I suppose in the USA are based in Christian values if you will as the foundation of the USA was based on these (according to Roswell41 anyway) - its hardly surprising if those morals go away one descends on a path with the corresponding lack of respect for authority and ultimately life / humanity. I am not intending to bring religion into this, but rather hi-light an increasing disappearance of good moral values (which religion teaches but you do not need religion to have) as it seems pretty clear that in the past 15 years as the next generations come through there is a drastically reduced sense of basic right and wrong, good and evil and so on. You cant entirely blame the parenting or kids though, as so much legislation has removed any sort of discipine for fear of repercussions and lawsuits. This in turn has helped develop a blame culture of passing the buck and not being able to own failure, wrongdoing or simply dropping the ball and taking responsibility for ones own actions and generally expecting everything to be handed on a plate to you while you become disconnected with the society we used to know and this mentallity is gradually taking over.
At the end of the day, this is a pretty huge cluster f**k of a problem which has taken generations to develop and will not go away any time soon, if it is possible to go away at all, so meanwhile it seems pretty obvious to me that whether a person is whatever degree of a nutjob, a plain angry andolescent or a lazy good for nothing who thinks the world owes them something, there would be less gun deaths if any of these persons could not easily get a gun and I fail to see how controlling guns so such can not get them is such a wild and bizarre concept.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, RR: 47 Reply 74, posted (6 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1979 times:
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 72): What about the controversy surrounding the Remington 700? Even though it was a design flaw (so I read), the shootings themselves were accidental because there's no way the owners could have known that.
I do not know this case... I know a bit about the Rem 700... the M24 for the US Army, but not this case
Either way, I am not talking about manufacturer errors, I'm talking about accidentally shooting yourself cleaning a weapon, pointing a "clear" weapon at someone else and oh crap, it's loaded, etc.
NEVER point a weapon at anyone. I am more paranoid than most... I KNOW a weapon is cleared but I clear it myself, and I look (in agonizing detail) down the magazine well and barrel. I KNOW there is no rounds in the weapon. I still don't point the weapon towards anything I don't intend to shoot... no stupid "attacker scenarios" or anything. These are the "accidents" that I label, pardon my French, BULLSHIT, and label as ignorance. I can go on and on, but basically, pretend the weapon is always loaded and a millimeter away from killing someone and you'll never be so dumb to point it at someone.
The gun debate is complex, but with this issue, I am firm... everyone should have strict, thorough training. Even if this makes me, trained in the US Army with M-16s/M-4s/M-249s/M-240Bs and in the US Navy with M-9s, going through some common sense course, I am fine with it, because it trains everyone with the basic RESPONSIBILITY they should have and if people think this is too much to handle, don't give them guns. That is not a violation of the 2nd Amendment in my mind, and I am pretty "conservative" when it comes to the 2nd Amendment
Not all gun "control" measures are trying to strip our guns and take away our civil liberties, let's stop kidding ourselves
roswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 576 posts, RR: 1 Reply 75, posted (6 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1979 times:
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 72): I checked just to make sure, and...nope, can't find anything about god saying you have the right to own a gun. It actually doesn't say anything about the United States of America either. Ain't that funny...
Since you're flag indicates you're Canadian, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You won't find what I said in the Bible or Torah, but you will find it referenced numerous times in the writings of the United States' Founding Fathers. The U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence indicate that rights come from the 'creator' and 'nature's god' and are to be protected by the government. The government is simply the custodian of these rights, which are given to each American at birth from their 'creator'. Sometimes I feel like a civics teacher on here, such are the limits of a public educational system.
roswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 576 posts, RR: 1 Reply 76, posted (6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1976 times:
Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 73): Say what you want about old fashioned morals - which I suppose in the USA are based in Christian values if you will as the foundation of the USA was based on these (according to Roswell41 anyway) - its hardly surprising if those morals go away one descends on a path with the corresponding lack of respect for authority and ultimately life / humanity. I am not intending to bring religion into this, but rather hi-light an increasing disappearance of good moral values (which religion teaches but you do not need religion to have) as it seems pretty clear that in the past 15 years as the next generations come through there is a drastically reduced sense of basic right and wrong, good and evil and so on. You cant entirely blame the parenting or kids though, as so much legislation has removed any sort of discipine for fear of repercussions and lawsuits. This in turn has helped develop a blame culture of passing the buck and not being able to own failure, wrongdoing or simply dropping the ball and taking responsibility for ones own actions and generally expecting everything to be handed on a plate to you while you become disconnected with the society we used to know and this mentallity is gradually taking over.
This I can agree with.
Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 73): the same God who gave commandments which include "do not kill" right?
Yep, same God, creator, nature's god, etc. Take your pick.
roswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 576 posts, RR: 1 Reply 77, posted (6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1975 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 70): Law-abiding gun owners should have no reason to oppose gun registration, since there would be no cause to confiscate their guns.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 68): Quoting roswell41 (Reply 67):For people to carry firearms on their person, I do not oppose basic gun handling training. Quoting roswell41 (Reply 67):When/if they are cured, they should be removed from the list.
How is that not contradicting yourself? You originally say there should be no "test" then put conditions on owning a gun
I am drawing a distinction between owning vs carry a gun. Owning should have no mandated training/testing. To carry a gun, I would not oppose basic safe firearms handling.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, RR: 47 Reply 78, posted (6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1975 times:
Quoting roswell41 (Reply 75): Since you're flag indicates you're Canadian, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You won't find what I said in the Bible or Torah, but you will find it referenced numerous times in the writings of the United States' Founding Fathers. The U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence indicate that rights come from the 'creator' and 'nature's god' and are to be protected by the government. The government is simply the custodian of these rights, which are given to each American at birth from their 'creator'.
Don't go on and on about that, I AM an American, not a Canadian, and a gun owner, and I disagree with a lot of what you are saying. Not everything the "other side says" is wrong...
...even if it makes it harder for me to recreationally, peacefully shoot. This blind defiance to everything and anything gun "control" is disturbing...
I wasn't trying to incite argument...just giving some anecdotal evidence to the contrary of your point
Quoting roswell41 (Reply 75): you will find it referenced numerous times in the writings of the United States' Founding Fathers. The U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence indicate that rights come from the 'creator' and 'nature's god' and are to be protected by the government. The government is simply the custodian of these rights, which are given to each American at birth from their 'creator'.
So because the founding fathers said it's god-given, it's god-given? The Lord chose to speak through Thomas Jefferson to put it in writing that it is His will that the American people have the right to own guns?
I don't buy it.
Quoting roswell41 (Reply 75): Perhaps one could argue the votes cast on 6 March 1933 by the German people killed millions.
Totally irrelevant. The Germans didn't vote for Hitler knowing he would commit genocide, therefore they did not vote to kill people. Again, a vote never killed anybody.
Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 73): At the end of the day I think a lot of it comes down to parenting and upbringing.
I used to prescribe to this theory, that it was nurture-over-nature, but I don't see it that way so much anymore. I have increasingly heard stories of parents who have multiple children, all of which are "normal", but there is one that is absolutely impossible. How can children with identical upbringings differ so much in behaviour/attitude/etc.? This gives me cause to believe that there is something in a child's hard-wiring, regardless of parenting, that can cause them to act out in the ways we've seen in these school-shooters. But I don't have a degree in psychology, so that's just my theory.
roswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 576 posts, RR: 1 Reply 80, posted (6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1963 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 78): Don't go on and on about that, I AM an American, not a Canadian, and a gun owner, and I disagree with a lot of what you are saying. Not everything the "other side says" is wrong...
...even if it makes it harder for me to recreationally, peacefully shoot. This blind defiance to everything and anything gun "control" is disturbing...
Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I refuse to sit quietly and let my rights be curtailed due to the actions of a few insane criminals. The only intellectually honest way to completely eliminate gun violence is to repeal the 2nd Amendment and then proceed with full and complete disarming of the American people including all criminals and law enforcement officers. Short of that, most of these policy suggestions are just 'feel good' measures. We have 300 million people and 300 million firearms in the USA. We have over 3 million AR-15 rifles in civilian hands. No assault weapons ban, magazine restriction or registration scheme will make any difference in crime rates. I oppose them because I view them as counter to the U.S. Constitution and illogical. Change the Constitution and guarantee you'll confiscate the firearms of all people including criminals and law enforecement and then I may be open to persuasion.
roswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 576 posts, RR: 1 Reply 81, posted (6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1960 times:
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 79):
So because the founding fathers said it's god-given, it's god-given? The Lord chose to speak through Thomas Jefferson to put it in writing that it is His will that the American people have the right to own guns?
Good question. I'll try to provide some color. Basically, the Founders were typical of the Enlightenment era. They were exposed to many great thinkers and philosophers, religious texts, etc. The Second Amendment is the guarantor of all other rights in the Bill of Rights. It was placed there as a deterrent against a tyrannical government - giving the population the most basic ability to resist. It was also understood that the right to self defense was and is a basic human right. Thus, the Second Amendment serves both purposes. The Second Amendment is not antiquated, it is timeless.
Well the fallacy of this line of thinking is pretty obvious. The constitution was not written by God (unless I am missing critical information). These are not God-given rights, those are government-given rights whichever way you see it. Just because I say something was told to me by God does not make it true.
Quoting roswell41 (Reply 75): The government is simply the custodian of these rights, which are given to each American at birth from their 'creator'
So God decides to give such rights to Americans and not to other people. Do you feel that privileged by God just because of your birthplace? That is so un-God-like and un-Christian.
roswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 576 posts, RR: 1 Reply 83, posted (6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1936 times:
Quoting lewis (Reply 82): So God decides to give such rights to Americans and not to other people. Do you feel that privileged by God just because of your birthplace? That is so un-God-like and un-Christian.
These rights are given by God to all human beings. We are just fortunate to have a government developed to protect and respect them in the USA.
Quoting lewis (Reply 82): Well the fallacy of this line of thinking is pretty obvious. The constitution was not written by God (unless I am missing critical information). These are not God-given rights, those are government-given rights whichever way you see it. Just because I say something was told to me by God does not make it true.
I'm done explaining and re-explaining basic American civics and government. Maybe your local community college has a course you could take. I sense you have a secular point of view and the word God impairs your ability to read my explanation. Believe what you want, although your opinion is incongruent with American history.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, RR: 47 Reply 84, posted (6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1935 times:
Quoting roswell41 (Reply 77): I am drawing a distinction between owning vs carry a gun.
Again, don't you think there should be even a basic level of understanding of guns? Maybe if guns COULDN'T be brought outside the house it would be different... but the difference between having a gun for home defense (which, I would reckon, most Americans agree upon) and carrying it out into the world is simply deciding to take it with you that day...
We keep going back to the same thing... guns are dangerous weapons. They are dangerous in obnoxious hands. Why is unreasonable/unconstitutional to expect some kind of training? And I am very right of center on this issue... It is not a secret that average Americans are pissed off at gun violence. What, would you rather have some "inconvenience now" that will deter some crime, or be stubborn and wait until anti-gun sentiment reaches 50.0001% and having some laws passed we don't like that punish us? I'm on the same "side" you are on, but I am at least trying to stay accountable for gun owners' actions. People are dying because of our incompetence. I'm sorry
Quoting roswell41 (Reply 80): Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I refuse to sit quietly and let my rights be curtailed due to the actions of a few insane criminals.
What are you talking about?? I am a gun owner myself, I don't want my rights to own "fun" weapons that I shoot peacefully to be taken away, believe me, this is a passionate topic for me to. I just can't oppose all these measures because a lot of these make sense. They are a MINIMAL inconvenience to me and you and they SAVE lives. I'm not gonna pretend we can end all gun violence, and I won't jump on the boat of stripping civil rights to defend against all scenarios (kinda like what they TSA is designed to do) but I refuse to automatically reject all gun control measures because, quite frankly, they make sense. Don't pretend we have the highest gun homicide rate because we uh, have more crazy people? Or whatever the excuse of the day is...
zippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 4740 posts, RR: 13 Reply 85, posted (6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1935 times:
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 4): We need the state-run asylums opened back up. We need better funding for mental healthcare. It's not about "healthcare law," it's about public safety.
Regarding mental health care in the USA, "mental illness" is still stigmatized especially by my (baby boom generation) which in turn filters down to Generation's X, Y and Millenials. If one is from wealth and privelidge they get the best mental health care and it's usually clandestine.
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 4): This sounds like a good plan....why were they shut down in the first place?
If I'm not mistaken President Ronald Wilson Reagan in his wisdom closed and emptied out the old assylums/puzzle houses. True, many of them were snake pits but, the flip side being an increase in homeless individuals with severe mental issues.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19813 posts, RR: 56 Reply 86, posted (6 months 1 day ago) and read 1911 times:
Quoting roswell41 (Reply 77): I am drawing a distinction between owning vs carry a gun. Owning should have no mandated training/testing.
If by "owning" you mean "keep on the wall for display purposes", then fine: render the gun inoperable and I have no problem with someone owning one without training. But if they're going to be using a gun, then they should have training.
Quoting roswell41 (Reply 80): The only intellectually honest way to completely eliminate gun violence is to repeal the 2nd Amendment and then proceed with full and complete disarming of the American people including all criminals and law enforcement officers. Short of that, most of these policy suggestions are just 'feel good' measures.
Bull. You can make real and tangible changes that will save lives. And you can do it without infringing upon anyone's Constitutional rights. Create a system to track guns (of which registration will be a key part), and go hard after people who sell guns illegally and you will stem the flow the guns to street gangs and common criminals. And that will save lives. It won't save every life - there will still be shootings - but that something doesn't have a 100% success rate is not sufficient reason to say it shouldn't be done.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7502 posts, RR: 2 Reply 87, posted (6 months 1 day ago) and read 1903 times:
You will always have 1 person in 10,000 being a total maniac.
Actually, the number is probably higher. Many of them are intelligent and manipulative. If you try to institutionalize them, they might send _you_ to jail. Or, they might cause you to lose your job.
So... how powerful do you want their weapons to be? We're talking about young men in every city in the world. How powerful do you want their weapons to be?
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7502 posts, RR: 2 Reply 88, posted (6 months 1 day ago) and read 1898 times:
Quoting roswell41 (Reply 80): The only intellectually honest way to completely eliminate gun violence is to repeal the 2nd Amendment and then proceed with full and complete disarming of the American people including all criminals and law enforcement officers.
This should be considered a fringe viewpoint. The 2nd Amendment does not allow young men who are not in a well-regulated militia to have assault weapons. That is just a crackpot modern fringe interpretation.
So, yes, I think people should be "disarmed" of assault weapons. Realistically, the US government has 1,000,000 soldiers and thousands of nuclear weapons. If people really believe they can "defend themselves" against the US government, they are so crazy that they should not have access to arms in the first place.
Law enforcement officers? Get real. Where do you get this stuff? Sorry, maybe recent events frustrate me. But I believe that in time, the mainstream will disavow gun nuts. It is time for this 2nd amendment misinterpretation to end.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19813 posts, RR: 56 Reply 89, posted (6 months 1 day ago) and read 1885 times:
Quoting Flighty (Reply 88): The 2nd Amendment does not allow young men who are not in a well-regulated militia to have assault weapons. That is just a crackpot modern fringe interpretation.
Actually, if you want to look at modern 2nd Amendment interpretations, just look at the idea that the militia component of the clause has nothing to do with the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. That idea has only been around since the 1970s.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
KiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 5417 posts, RR: 3 Reply 90, posted (6 months 23 hours ago) and read 1873 times:
Quoting roswell41 (Reply 64): Present some facts or take your racist opinions somewhere else.
What's racist about it, I think it's up to you to prove me wrong! All the recent cases where someone has gone nuts and killed large numbers of people at the same time has been committed by white men, I just wonder why it appears to be a white thing to do, nothing racist about that.
Geezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1467 posts, RR: 2 Reply 91, posted (6 months 20 hours ago) and read 1858 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 70): There is no absolutely reason that gun registration should not be mandatory.
[/quote}
In YOUR opinion Mir, in YOUR opinion ! (Other's opinions my vary, but I realize you always tend to think your's is superior.)
[quote=DeltaMD90,reply=33]Again, no one is debating this. What we are (or at least I am debating) is why a bunch of people are ONE HUNDRED PERCENT against ALL gun control measures?
Many people have been explaining why they are against "gun control measures" (as you refer to them), but YOU weren't listening; that's one of the big problems here; every time you state YOUR opinion, you tend to become "rattled" when anyone disagrees with YOUR opinion. When I express my opinion numerous times to the same individual, and that individual continues to disagree with me............I tend to assume that we have "irreconcilable" differences of opinion, and let it go at that. Maybe you should try that ?
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 33): Almost every single person on this board is NOT advocating "banning guns altogether." That is a lie. Even the European on this board talk of hunting and shooting clubs... listen to what they are saying
What do "hunting and shooting clubs" in Europe have to do with ANYTHING ? I don't LIVE in Europe ! (thank heavens !)
I don't NEED a "hunting club", as I have zero interest in shooting animals; period; There's a fellow who used to live a mile down the road that used to come up to the woods directly across the road from my house to hunt squirrels; always "used" to park in my drive way while he was hunting.........till I told him if he killed ONE MORE squirrel across the road, he would be needing all new tires on his car when he was ready to go home; he got MAD ! At ME ! Can you believe it ? Because HE'S a cold-blooded murderer of squirrels, he thinks I should "condone" HIS murderous ways ! And on that same line of thought.......our little "girl"cat, (Miss Kitty Cat), spent half the night last night, chasing a mouse around that always get in the house somehow; this morning, she finally caught the mouse; but she's just "in it" for the chase; after she caught the mouse, it seems to have a bad leg, can't run; so I picked the mouse up and for a time had it in a plastic waste basket; later I put it in a plastic pail with a lid on it that the cat litter comes in. So now I am faced with......"what to do with the mouse that can't run"; well, I DIDN"T take it to the vet ER to have it's leg x rayed; later in the day I drove it down to the covered bridge and threw it in to the creek; if a big bass eats it.......oh well, the food chain in action; if it makes it out of the creek.........It's a pretty long walk back to the house ! So yes, I DO have "feelings" for small creatures; being surrounded by hundreds of acres of woods and pastures, we have a LOT of mice around here; but I never put out "mouse bait", or other poisonous products, as we also have many, many owls and hawks, and I don't want to have my feathered friends eating "poisoned" mice.
And "shooting clubs" ? Ha ! why on earth would I need to go to a "shooting club", when I have a perfectly safe, legal place to shoot within 100 yards of the house ? ( Remember, this is rural Indiana I live in, NOT Europe ! )
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 33): " That is a lie. Even the European on this board talk of hunting and shooting clubs... listen to what they are saying
A very poor choice of words, that ! When you say that something someone said is a "lie", that's almost exactly the same as saying that the person saying it is a liar; which, if I'm not mistaken, is against forum rules. You may not agree with my opinion, but I can assure you of one thing..........you won't be catching me in any lies on this forum; I really have no need for telling lies; (lies are almost always so impermanent..)
I'll point something else out also; so far, there have been 89 replies to this thread; you have made 10 of them; (I believe this is my 2nd one ?)
I'm going to state another opinion about the topic under discussion here; I think it is highly unlikely that all of the opinions expressed thus far, in all of these last 90 replies, are going to have the slightest effect on the issue that is being discussed here.
Face it; there always have been, there are now, and there always WILL be a fair % of the population that are "maladjusted", "loaners", (and all of the rest of the popular names for angry, violent individuals), and there are NO laws that can be "passed" that are going to solve THAT problem.
I think the REAL "nut-job" in this particular incident, is the woman who bought the guns, then failed to lock all of that ammunition and all of those guns up, knowing very well that this son of her's was........"strange" (for lack of a better description). I also agree with Dreadnought when he made the astute observation that all of the "hoopla" created by each one of the last 3 or 4 such "incidents", is almost bound to plant "seeds" in the minds of other such individuals. There are probably as many reasons for people becoming this way, as there are people doing such senseless things.......all to draw attention to themselves. (But I'll leave that discussion to Dr. Keith Ablow; he understands it much better than I do.)
What I really think is being missed by many on here is, every time there is another gun-related death due to a deranged person like this kid in Ct. is the fact that every time a thread such as this gets started, it ends up attempting to discuss about 25 different things at the same time, (which IMHO), is completely impossible and meaningless); someone mentions "GOD", 10 people "don't believe in "God"; some one mentions "guns".......40 people say...... "I hate guns! wouldn't have one if you gave it to me!" When I mentioned "banning" violent computer games.......a BUNCH scurry to point out that....."those studies are all BS"; no surprise there ! I'm sure if some one needs to "give up" something, it's going to be someone ELSE that has to do the "giving up" ! It's always "some one else" when the need for changing anything is mentioned; And I did notice one more astute observation; can't remember who it was, but some "big shot" type that is screaming for "doing away with" CC permits, HAS a CC permit ! Ever notice that famous loud-mouth, Rosie O'Donnell blathering around about "needing more gun laws", "ban the damned guns, etc". but two days later we find that SHE has a "body-guard" (who has a CC permit while guarding her fat ass !) And that paragon of "knowing what's best for EVERYONE", Senator Diane Feinstein, also has a CC permit; and I just remembered.........it was good old Mayor Michael Bloomberg who doesn't want ME or YOU to "carry" in NYC, but it's perfectly fine for HIM to "carry".......(even though he's a billionaire (with a "B"), and probably has 16 former 9th degree black belts with Tommy guns following him around while he tell ME that I don't need to protect myself. So those are just a tiny fraction of the many reasons that there are ALWAYS going to be why a LOT of people who disagree 100% of the time with "no more gun control is needed" type laws being needed. ( Please let me know if you understand all of that.)
Charley
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12365 posts, RR: 12 Reply 92, posted (6 months 19 hours ago) and read 1825 times:
A deeper issue is the social and economic stigma of mental and psychological illness as well as ignorance in knowing how to deal with it with those we know and in our families. That means those who develop these problems may not get the help they need out of fear of bringing shame, questioning their family's gene pool, the economic costs of getting help, that others will find out there are problems, making it more difficult to get and keep a job.
In many countries with strong, well run, sufficiently funded health care systems as well as different cultural attitudes in dealing with the reality of mental and psychological illness, you see less mass violence as to schools, government and other institutions.
roswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 576 posts, RR: 1 Reply 93, posted (6 months 15 hours ago) and read 1785 times:
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 90): What's racist about it, I think it's up to you to prove me wrong! All the recent cases where someone has gone nuts and killed large numbers of people at the same time has been committed by white men, I just wonder why it appears to be a white thing to do, nothing racist about that.
It's not up to me to do anything. I've presented empirical evidence in an earlier post regarding crime in the U.S. broken down by race. You've presented your opinion and nothing more. I take offense at your characterization of its a 'white thing to do'. Think about how obscene of a statement you've made. Instead of doubling down on your comment, perhaps you should rethink it. If I had said, "most murderers are black, gee why is that the black thing to do?" That implies that there is a racial predisposition to murder, which obviously is false and a racist point to argue. Yours is equally racist.
roswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 576 posts, RR: 1 Reply 94, posted (6 months 15 hours ago) and read 1775 times:
Quoting Flighty (Reply 88): The 2nd Amendment does not allow young men who are not in a well-regulated militia to have assault weapons. That is just a crackpot modern fringe interpretation.
Research these U.S. Supreme Court decisions:
Heller v DC
McDonald v Chicago
Once you've read those, if you want to know why you shouldn't rely on the police to protect you read:
Castle Rock v Gonzalez
Perhaps those will help you rethink your comment that I have quoted. The leading jurists in the US don't agree with what you say.
roswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 576 posts, RR: 1 Reply 95, posted (6 months 14 hours ago) and read 1777 times:
Quoting Flighty (Reply 88): Realistically, the US government has 1,000,000 soldiers and thousands of nuclear weapons. If people really believe they can "defend themselves" against the US government, they are so crazy that they should not have access to arms in the first place.
Well, look at the US military's lack of clear victory in Afghanistan or Iraq. Insurgencies armed with just small arms and improvised devices have beaten back the world's largest superpower. What good did those millions of soldiers or nuclear weapons do in those cases? The U.S. Founding Fathers did the same thing to the British military. They were an amateurish group of men with small arms. They used guerilla style tactics and beat the world's biggest superpower. So, realistically, I think you're 100% wrong and those two examples, one historical and one modern, prove it.
KiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 5417 posts, RR: 3 Reply 96, posted (6 months 14 hours ago) and read 1775 times:
Quoting roswell41 (Reply 93): If I had said, "most murderers are black, gee why is that the black thing to do?" That implies that there is a racial predisposition to murder, which obviously is false and a racist point to argue.
Stupid thing to say because it's true, and easy to verify, more murders are committed in the US by black people than any other ethnicity, it's a fact, facts aren't racist they are facts.
the above mentioned site also shows that multiple murders are more likely to be carried out by white people, can't see anything racist about that either.
It's only a blog but makes interesting reading and backs up my point.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, RR: 47 Reply 97, posted (6 months 14 hours ago) and read 1772 times:
Quoting Geezer (Reply 91): A very poor choice of words, that ! When you say that something someone said is a "lie", that's almost exactly the same as saying that the person saying it is a liar; which, if I'm not mistaken, is against forum rules. You may not agree with my opinion, but I can assure you of one thing..........you won't be catching me in any lies on this forum; I really have no need for telling lies; (lies are almost always so impermanent..)
The "lie" is claiming all these groups want to "ban all guns." No one is suggesting that
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19813 posts, RR: 56 Reply 98, posted (6 months 14 hours ago) and read 1764 times:
Quoting roswell41 (Reply 94): Research these U.S. Supreme Court decisions:
Heller v DC
McDonald v Chicago
Both very recent decisions, which run contrary to the long-standing belief that the prime purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to provide for state militias (and, in the case of the Heller decision, use some very dubious logic in developing the majority argument).
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2523 posts, RR: 35 Reply 99, posted (6 months 13 hours ago) and read 1757 times:
Quoting roswell41 (Reply 94): Perhaps those will help you rethink your comment that I have quoted. The leading jurists in the US don't agree with what you say.
May I suggest you read up on how the meaning of the second amendment has changed over history and especially over the last 40 years.
It may also be interesting to note that back when the amendment was created there were questions about if it needed to include if hunting was allowed on your own grounds. It was stated that was unnecessary but if that was a question do you really think the intent was to have people running around with loaded guns in public?
Quoting Mir (Reply 98): Both very recent decisions, which run contrary to the long-standing belief that the prime purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to provide for state militias (and, in the case of the Heller decision, use some very dubious logic in developing the majority argument).
Guess we should reduce the federal armed force back to the 840 soldiers allowed at that time too
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
roswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 576 posts, RR: 1 Reply 100, posted (6 months 6 hours ago) and read 1701 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 99): May I suggest you read up on how the meaning of the second amendment has changed over history and especially over the last 40 years.
I've read plenty of scholarly articles on the subject including the Federalist Papers which provide insight into the thinking of the Founders in their own words.
Quoting Mir (Reply 98): Both very recent decisions, which run contrary to the long-standing belief that the prime purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to provide for state militias (and, in the case of the Heller decision, use some very dubious logic in developing the majority argument).
Indeed they are recent decisions. As to your point, its been dismissed by the highest court in the US. Its settled law, much like Roe v. Wade.
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 96): Stupid thing to say because it's true, and easy to verify, more murders are committed in the US by black people than any other ethnicity, it's a fact, facts aren't racist they are facts.
Look, maybe I'm not communicating my point effectively. You point just reads that you are saying people of a certain race are predisposed to commit certain types of crimes. I disagree and find your point nonsensical. Sure, the statistics are the statistics, however, I don't believe the race you are born predisposes you to commit certain types of crimes.
Until it gets overturned. If there's one thing that the Supreme Court has proven over the past decade or so, it's that stare decisis doesn't mean a damn thing.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2523 posts, RR: 35 Reply 102, posted (6 months 1 hour ago) and read 1643 times:
Quoting roswell41 (Reply 100): I've read plenty of scholarly articles on the subject including the Federalist Papers which provide insight into the thinking of the Founders in their own words.
Great. Then explain why the interpretation has changed so dramatically over the last 40ish years.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 4777 posts, RR: 6 Reply 103, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1629 times:
Quoting lewis (Reply 82): These are not God-given rights, those are government-given rights whichever way you see it.
A well regarded legal theory is that the rights enshrined in the Constitution are naturally-held rights, and they are listed the way they are not because the government granted them, but to ensure that the government doesn't infringe upon them, while at the same time actively protecting them.
In an interesting twist, however, among the very first of the rights listed is freedom of religion, which means that a person is allowed to view such natural rights as "God-given".
Quoting roswell41 (Reply 81): The Second Amendment is the guarantor of all other rights in the Bill of Rights.
Not really. The 2nd Amendment was put in place to ensure that citizens were able to assemble quickly with the tools needed to prevent an overthrow of their system of government. Hence, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...". Nothing in the 2nd Amendment suggests that the right to keep and bear arms was drawn from the right of self-defense or to guarantee the other rights, but specifically draws the right from the need to keep the State secure from being illegally overthrown by a hostile actor. A full-time large-scale professional Army was not something that the US was ready to afford back in the late 1700s.
Sponsor Message: 
From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3237 posts, 
From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 5100 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13368 posts, 
From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2346 posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 31228 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2090 posts, 
I agree with this mostly because 21 is a ridiculous drinking age...but that's for another thread. 
From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 5417 posts, 
From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3448 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
