Chinese teen kills nine in knife attack

fife · August 2012

now that I have calm down, i have a question.

If gun ownership is a right than why is there never an issue raised when someone with mental health issues tries to get one but can't?

If gun ownership is a right would anyone minds if a 16 goes and buys a gun.

if gun ownership is a right would anyone mind if a person who had a history of violence when they were young wasa able to get a gun?

Cosmo · August 2012

fife wrote:

now that I have calm down, i have a question.

If gun ownership is a right than why is there never an issue raised when someone with mental health issues tries to get one but can't?

...
I think that is what most people on the other side of the NRA arguement is saying... we don't want to 'Ban Guns'. We just want to make it tougher for unstable psychos to get their hands on assault rifles.
We KNOW that there is a majority of responsible gun owners out there and don't have any will to deny them of their Constitutional rights. It is the anti-social guy that has a fucking arsenal that he has easily accumulated through legal channels... and a chip on his shoulder the size of El Capitan, that we're worried about.

fife · August 2012

Cosmo wrote:

fife wrote:

now that I have calm down, i have a question.

If gun ownership is a right than why is there never an issue raised when someone with mental health issues tries to get one but can't?

...
I think that is what most people on the other side of the NRA arguement is saying... we don't want to 'Ban Guns'. We just want to make it tougher for unstable psychos to get their hands on assault rifles.
We KNOW that there is a majority of responsible gun owners out there and don't have any will to deny them of their Constitutional rights. It is the anti-social guy that has a fucking arsenal that he has easily accumulated through legal channels... and a chip on his shoulder the size of El Capitan, that we're worried about.

so the question is when is a right not a right.

I see people here say that owning a gun is a right but if it is a right than anyone should be able to get a gun no matter about anything.

can someone who believes that gun ownership is a right answer why people with mental health issues should not have that Right?

redrock · August 2012

ComeToTX wrote:

The laws are shitty. The guy in Seattle that killed 4 people had a long history of mental illness. He still had a carry permit. Even after his family went to the police and told them that they feared he might do something. The police couldn't do anything and 4 people are dead because of a shitty law.

And him...
http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/crime-law ... -li/nP7rb/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162- ... -mans-car/

But then he had no intention of using them... :roll:

cincybearcat · August 2012

Byrnzie wrote:

I'll go ask Cincybearcat about it, as maybe mass murder is something I should lighten up about.

Yawn. Time and place for everything, including lighthearted posts. I'm really happy to see so far I've made it in a couple of your posts though that really have nothing to do with the topic in the thread. Makes me feel special.

hedonist · August 2012

fife wrote:

so the question is when is a right not a right.

I see people here say that owning a gun is a right but if it is a right than anyone should be able to get a gun no matter about anything.

can someone who believes that gun ownership is a right answer why people with mental health issues should not have that Right?

When the right is abused (or can be abused, for example one with untreated mental illness or one incapable of handling a weapon safely), then it's not a given anymore. Like how prisoners lose certain rights by the crimes they've committed, or - to use the old example - despite having the right to free speech, yelling "fire" in a theater.

inmytree · August 2012

fife wrote:

now that I have calm down, i have a question.

If gun ownership is a right than why is there never an issue raised when someone with mental health issues tries to get one but can't?

If gun ownership is a right would anyone minds if a 16 goes and buys a gun.

if gun ownership is a right would anyone mind if a person who had a history of violence when they were young wasa able to get a gun?

cars....

MotoDC · August 2012

Cosmo wrote:

fife wrote:

now that I have calm down, i have a question.

If gun ownership is a right than why is there never an issue raised when someone with mental health issues tries to get one but can't?

...
I think that is what most people on the other side of the NRA arguement is saying... we don't want to 'Ban Guns'. We just want to make it tougher for unstable psychos to get their hands on assault rifles.
We KNOW that there is a majority of responsible gun owners out there and don't have any will to deny them of their Constitutional rights. It is the anti-social guy that has a fucking arsenal that he has easily accumulated through legal channels... and a chip on his shoulder the size of El Capitan, that we're worried about.

I'm not here to tell the Assman what the Assman wants (yay two Seinfield references in two days!), but I don't think you're accurately stating what others in this thread want:

- Ban all assault rifles (not just for psychos), though how we define assault rifle for them is beyond me
- Make it illegal for anyone with any record of "psychological episodes" to purchase or possess a firearm
- Make it illegal for anyone with a felony conviction to purchase or possess a firearm
- Establish waiting periods for any purchase
- Eliminate the gunshow loophole
- Ban high-capacity magazines (kinda thought this was already the case, maybe it varies by state)
- Some folks want to ban handguns, but I don't think that's a consistent POV across the board
- Some folks want to ban concealed carry (or any kind of public carry), but again I don't think that's a consistent POV either

We get so caught up in arguing our ideologies here that most of us probably couldn't even say where the others stand on the above details.

fife · August 2012

inmytree wrote:

fife wrote:

now that I have calm down, i have a question.

If gun ownership is a right than why is there never an issue raised when someone with mental health issues tries to get one but can't?

If gun ownership is a right would anyone minds if a 16 goes and buys a gun.

if gun ownership is a right would anyone mind if a person who had a history of violence when they were young wasa able to get a gun?

cars....

last time I checked cars are not a right. the main issue that people are talking about is that gun ownership is a right so I am trying to understand what they mean by right.

JonnyPistachio · August 2012

DS1119 wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Pretty much this. More cars kill people (lets ban those) than guns by A LOT annually worldwide but lets punish the overwhelming majority of gun owners for the few crazies out there. I bet you I could kill someone with a popsicle stick. Let's ban popsicles!

...
You know... you are not supposed to kill people with your car, right? I don't know what you use your car for... but, I use mine to go to work and back. I don't park it next to my bed with the motor running in case I need to run over someone breaking into my house in the middle of the night.
...
And think about it... just run the numbers. How many people do you know that owns and drives a car? Do all of those people own guns?
How many times do you use your car? Every day? How many times a day?
Now... if every one who owns and operates a car... owned a gun and fired it as often as they use their car... don't you think the numbers would change?

You're a responsible car driver...but then again there is an overwhelmingly majority of responsible gun owners too. Probably more responsible gun owners percentage wise than car owners...yet it's the guns that are the problem...like the cars must be the problem. Ban the cars!!

Well than maybe we can compromise...I'd be willing to bet most automobile deaths are due to poor driving, no? Maybe it should be harder to get a drivers license and texting should be outlawed while driving? And at the same time, it should be harder to obtain assault rilfes, and magazine capacities should be reduced. Bingo.

fife · August 2012

hedonist wrote:

fife wrote:

so the question is when is a right not a right.

I see people here say that owning a gun is a right but if it is a right than anyone should be able to get a gun no matter about anything.

can someone who believes that gun ownership is a right answer why people with mental health issues should not have that Right?

When the right is abused (or can be abused, for example one with untreated mental illness or one incapable of handling a weapon safely), then it's not a given anymore. Like how prisoners lose certain rights by the crimes they've committed, or - to use the old example - despite having the right to free speech, yelling "fire" in a theater.

so your saying that there are restrictions to a right, is that correct?

hedonist · August 2012

fife wrote:

hedonist wrote:

fife wrote:

so the question is when is a right not a right.

I see people here say that owning a gun is a right but if it is a right than anyone should be able to get a gun no matter about anything.

can someone who believes that gun ownership is a right answer why people with mental health issues should not have that Right?

When the right is abused (or can be abused, for example one with untreated mental illness or one incapable of handling a weapon safely), then it's not a given anymore. Like how prisoners lose certain rights by the crimes they've committed, or - to use the old example - despite having the right to free speech, yelling "fire" in a theater.

so your saying that there are restrictions to a right, is that correct?

Common sense restrictions, punitive too (ie, felons losing their right to vote), I'm sure others too.

Cosmo · August 2012

MotoDC wrote:

- Ban all assault rifles (not just for psychos), though how we define assault rifle for them is beyond me
- Make it illegal for anyone with any record of "psychological episodes" to purchase or possess a firearm
- Make it illegal for anyone with a felony conviction to purchase or possess a firearm
- Establish waiting periods for any purchase
- Eliminate the gunshow loophole
- Ban high-capacity magazines (kinda thought this was already the case, maybe it varies by state)
- Some folks want to ban handguns, but I don't think that's a consistent POV across the board
- Some folks want to ban concealed carry (or any kind of public carry), but again I don't think that's a consistent POV either

We get so caught up in arguing our ideologies here that most of us probably couldn't even say where the others stand on the above details.

...
If you are speaking in general terms, you typically toss out the extreme ends of the curve and concentrate on the meaty part of the Bell Curve. Otherwise, you would have to include the like of Tim McVeigh on the pro-Gun side. I don't do that and listen to the rational arguements, and censor out the illogical rantings from the lunatic fringes.

Cosmo · August 2012

hedonist wrote:

Common sense restrictions, punitive too (ie, felons losing their right to vote), I'm sure others too.

...
I know... Why do people support allowing convicted felons to own guns? What is the pro-arguement of that item?

DS1119 · August 2012

Cosmo wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

This is why I say ban the cars. Just think of the lives that will be saved and the benfit to the enviroment. All I say when people preach about gun control is becasue it doesn;t affect them. They don't own a gun. Hell I don't own a gun and never will becasue quite frankly I don't want the responsibilty that goes along with it. Unfortuantely there are people who want one. And by a huge majority they are very responsible with them. Most shootings are not done with legally obtained weapons btw.

It's funny that some of the same posters who came waiving the constitution in the thread about the borders, walls, guns, etc. don't waive the constitution when it comes to gun control.

...
You are STILL missing the point... by about a mile.
You comparison is irrelevant, at best. Nothing to do with banning guns or cars... nothing to do with Constitutional Rights or the 2nd Amendment. Everything to do with the numbers.
...
The total number of car related deaths is greater than the total number of gun related deaths, simply because more people own and drive cars, than own and fire guns.
Raise (or lower) the numbers so they are equal in both amounts and usage and the total number of deaths will change.
Your arguement is as silly and irrelevant as this one:
"More people in the U.S. died from gun related deaths last year than died from Polonium Radiation Poisoning. Possession of Polonium is illegal in the U.S., therefore, guns should be illegal, too."
...
See what an assinine arguement that is... comparing guns to Polonium? Make absolutely no sense and is completely irrelevant, right?
Get the point, now?

I'm not missing the point. This why I said percentage wise.

But otherwise if more people still die from cars...that makes it a bigger problem right? I say ba the caars!

DS1119 · August 2012

ComeToTX wrote:

The laws are shitty. The guy in Seattle that killed 4 people had a long history of mental illness. He still had a carry permit. Even after his family went to the police and told them that they feared he might do something. The police couldn't do anything and 4 people are dead because of a shitty law.

But what people always fail to realize is how many other people with tainted histories owned guns and never did anything. There's millions of gun owners out there that will never have an issue.

DS1119 · August 2012

fife wrote:

now that I have calm down, i have a question.

If gun ownership is a right than why is there never an issue raised when someone with mental health issues tries to get one but can't?

If gun ownership is a right would anyone minds if a 16 goes and buys a gun.

if gun ownership is a right would anyone mind if a person who had a history of violence when they were young wasa able to get a gun?

Simple...there are restrictions to everything here...and for good reason. I mean a 20 year old can't legally drink but a 21 year old can. A 17 year old can't vote, but an 18 year old can. Pretty simple actually.

DS1119 · August 2012

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Well than maybe we can compromise...I'd be willing to bet most automobile deaths are due to poor driving, no? Maybe it should be harder to get a drivers license and texting should be outlawed while driving? And at the same time, it should be harder to obtain assault rilfes, and magazine capacities should be reduced. Bingo.

Actually using your cell phone while driving is already illegal in NYS. And about your gun points...those are already heavily regulated. Sure maybe an incident slips thorugh...once maybe twice a year...it's a tragedy and I don't minimize that for those involved...but theis thought that it's such a widespread problem and issue is ridiculous. I mean more people will die today from accidental electrocution than will die this year from legally obtained weapons.

I say ban the toasters!

Cosmo · August 2012

DS1119 wrote:

I'm not missing the point. This why I said percentage wise. But otherwise if more people still die from cars...that makes it a bigger problem right? I say ba the caars!

...
No, you are missing the point. You are trying to play a numbers game, using different equations to represent percentages and acutals.
Illustrate:
1,000 cars with 100 death is 100/1,000 or .1%
100 guns with 1 death is 1/100 or .1%
The statement, "More people died from cars than guns" is a true statement, because 1 < 100.
...
The point I am making is that if you increase the number of gun to equal the number of guns... will the total number of death increase? I'm saying, 'Yes'... you are skirting the question.
Using the simple, dumbed down equations illustrated above, Do you think that, all things being equal, number of car and number of guns both being equal to 1,000... the number of gun related deaths would remain as 1?
Because if the percentage is to remain the the same, the total number of gun related death would need to increase from 1, to 100 (total).
I'm applying a very simple logic here. If you can explain to me how the total number can remain at one, without changing the percentage... please, explain it to me because I really would love to hear it.

DS1119 · August 2012

Cosmo wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

I'm not missing the point. This why I said percentage wise. But otherwise if more people still die from cars...that makes it a bigger problem right? I say ba the caars!

...
No, you are missing the point. You are trying to play a numbers game, using different equations to represent percentages and acutals.
Illustrate:
1,000 cars with 100 death is 100/1,000 or .1%
100 guns with 1 death is 1/100 or .1%
The statement, "More people died from cars than guns" is a true statement, because 1 < 100.
...
The point I am making is that if you increase the number of gun to equal the number of guns... will the total number of death increase? I'm saying, 'Yes'... you are skirting the question.
Using the simple, dumbed down equations illustrated above, Do you think that, all things being equal, number of car and number of guns both being equal to 1,000... the number of gun related deaths would remain as 1?
Because if the percentage is to remain the the same, the total number of gun related death would need to increase from 1, to 100 (total).
I'm applying a very simple logic here. If you can explain to me how the total number can remain at one, without changing the percentage... please, explain it to me because I really would love to hear it.

And I say since the percentage of deaths in the US by LEGALLY OWNED WEAPONS is still significantly lower than deaths by automobile even if you increase the number of LEGALLY OWNED WEAPONS the percentage NEVER changes. :fp:

Ban the cars!

Chinese teen kills nine in knife attack

Comments

Categories