Whats going wrong with the world? More shootings

Hugh Freaking Dillon · August 2012

DS1119 wrote:

but I'm still waiting for the stories about legal fireamrs that didn't cause any harm yesterday.

and so when someone's baby dies by being trapped and smothered in an ill-conceived cushion in a crib, do we just say "hey, look at all the kids that DIDN'T die". No, we learn from the experience and decide maybe that cushion isn't safe for kids. And we remove it.

do you think it's logical to remove cars from society? how would that affect the economy, not to mention society as a whole? how does that compare to how society would benefit or not from stricter gun laws?

how can you possible claim the comparison is logical?

comebackgirl · August 2012

Godfather. wrote:

ComeToTX wrote:

The A&M shooters mom said he was ill and it's sad his illness led to this. Yet he still had no problem getting guns. Yeah, those laws are plenty strong. Now he and two others are dead over a eviction notice.

the fix for that seems ez enuff, mental sidorders should be reported to the state/fed's to add to the list of people that are not allowed to buy guns...or do they do that already ?
can you imagine the amount of people that would not be allowed to buy guns ??? wow ! seems it might help.

Godfather.

the question with that is where do you draw the line? Do mild depressive disorders and ADHD count, or just psychotic disorders? Would Axis II disorders, like antisocial personality disorder(similar to what we consider sociopaths) count? Sociopath and psychopath aren't DSM-IV diagnoses, so what do we do with people who fall in that category? Mental health isn't static, so someone being considered a danger to self or others is fleeting. Do we only apply this to people seeking inpatient care? The VA Tech shooter was able to legally obtain a gun because he was mandated to outpatient care, not inpatient.

ComeToTX · August 2012

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

ComeToTX wrote:

The A&M shooters mom said he was ill and it's sad his illness led to this. Yet he still had no problem getting guns. Yeah, those laws are plenty strong. Now he and two others are dead over a eviction notice.

the fix for that seems ez enuff, mental sidorders should be reported to the state/fed's to add to the list of people that are not allowed to buy guns...or do they do that already ?
can you imagine the amount of people that would not be allowed to buy guns ??? wow ! seems it might help.

Godfather.

then you are treating everyone with depression as a second class citizen, as in, no longer able to obtain arms which is their given right under the second amendment, a right some of you hold so dear.

I thought the second amendment shouldn't be altered? but now it can for mental illness? what about society's illness?

With this one yesterday and the guy in Seatlle the family had concerns about the mental health of the shooter. The family of the guy in Seattle tried to get his guns taken away. It seems like if a guys parents say you're a threat to others the cops should be able to do something.

ComeToTX · August 2012

comebackgirl wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

ComeToTX wrote:

The A&M shooters mom said he was ill and it's sad his illness led to this. Yet he still had no problem getting guns. Yeah, those laws are plenty strong. Now he and two others are dead over a eviction notice.

the fix for that seems ez enuff, mental sidorders should be reported to the state/fed's to add to the list of people that are not allowed to buy guns...or do they do that already ?
can you imagine the amount of people that would not be allowed to buy guns ??? wow ! seems it might help.

Godfather.

the question with that is where do you draw the line? Do mild depressive disorders and ADHD count, or just psychotic disorders? Would Axis II disorders, like antisocial personality disorder(similar to what we consider sociopaths) count? Sociopath and psychopath aren't DSM-IV diagnoses, so what do we do with people who fall in that category? Mental health isn't static, so someone being considered a danger to self or others is fleeting. Do we only apply this to people seeking inpatient care? The VA Tech shooter was able to legally obtain a gun because he was mandated to outpatient care, not inpatient.

I agree. That's why some sort of owner registry is needed. If a guy like Holmes is stockpiling weapons it should raise red flags. If a neo-nazi like the guy in Wisconsin starts buying new guns and ammo it should raise a red flag.

redrock · August 2012

pandora wrote:

It is extremely easy for criminals to get guns. Much easier than the law abiding
responsible who buy legally, who fill out applications, background checks,
and often wait, then take safety training..

Ummmm... except when the law abiding citizen buys off the internet or any other unlicensed dealer - no applications, no background checks, no wait. Same as a criminal wanting to get one if he/she wanted. When will you understand that? Safety training is not law, is it?

pandora wrote:

Checks and balances on the internet rely on the individual making the purchase,
or their parents..

How silly. No........ Checks do not rely on the individual making the purchase :? . What is this person going to do? Look at himself/herself in the mirror and say: 'yep, I think I'm OK to have a gun'? That is the job of the licensed dealer to get the info, send it off wherever it needs to go and wait for the results. If one employs someone and requires references, will one say 'OK potential employee, I will rely on you to give me references. Type one up and hand it in.'

comebackgirl · August 2012

ComeToTX wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

the question with that is where do you draw the line? Do mild depressive disorders and ADHD count, or just psychotic disorders? Would Axis II disorders, like antisocial personality disorder(similar to what we consider sociopaths) count? Sociopath and psychopath aren't DSM-IV diagnoses, so what do we do with people who fall in that category? Mental health isn't static, so someone being considered a danger to self or others is fleeting. Do we only apply this to people seeking inpatient care? The VA Tech shooter was able to legally obtain a gun because he was mandated to outpatient care, not inpatient.

I agree. That's why some sort of owner registry is needed. If a guy like Holmes is stockpiling weapons it should raise red flags. If a neo-nazi like the guy in Wisconsin starts buying new guns and ammo it should raise a red flag.

Exactly. With a registry those alarm bells would go off, similar to the registries in development to prevent prescription drug use. Background checks are needed, but as we've seen in some recent cases people with no histories would still slip through the cracks.

polaris_x · August 2012

comebackgirl wrote:

Exactly. With a registry those alarm bells would go off, similar to the registries in development to prevent prescription drug use. Background checks are needed, but as we've seen in some recent cases people with no histories would still slip through the cracks.

we had a registry here in canada ... it cost a lot of money to start it up ... but now that it's running efficiently and smoothly and the police forces all use it ... our right wing gov't scrapped it ... :fp:

JonnyPistachio · August 2012

DS1119 wrote:

Sorry. Won't stop using the car analogy until it stops making logical sense. Or until it becomes harder to obtain a driver's license and vehicle than it does a firearm.

Oh, thank god! You can stop using that ridiculous analogy now, since you said it yourself...To obtain a drivers license, one must make an appointment and pass a written test and driving test. To purchase a firearm, you can do so online or at a gun show with no questions asked. A Drivers License is harder to get than a gun. Your automobile analogy is further banned from this conversation. Thank you.

redrock · August 2012

JonnyPistachio wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Sorry. Won't stop using the car analogy until it stops making logical sense. Or until it becomes harder to obtain a driver's license and vehicle than it does a firearm.

Oh, thank god! You can stop using that ridiculous analogy now, since you said it yourself...To obtain a drivers license, one must make an appointment and pass a written test and driving test. To purchase a firearm, you can do so online or at a gun show with no questions asked. A Drivers License is harder to get than a gun. Your automobile analogy is further banned from this conversation. Thank you.

hedonist · August 2012

Remember the Springsteen song? - 67 channels and nothing on.

(although, in these times? pfffft! 67 channels is child's play)

Anyway, this thread kinda reminds me of that

redrock · August 2012

Nothing on and all repeats, Hedonist!!!!

pandora · August 2012

comebackgirl wrote:

I'm sorry. You're going to have to diagram this one out for me. I'm not try to be facetious...you've really lost me. Yes...he had a plan...he was prepared...and sadly he was shot. I need you to explain that highlighted part for me. I understand that it doesn't apply to
a) Miss Ruby
b) the lady in your neighboring town
c) The police officer at Texas A&M

I'm having trouble understanding when those words DO apply.

Have you read the entire thought pages and pages back?
or do you only focus on the last lines and try to make them something to fit your agenda?

I thought so...

have you read the replies the countless time I have addressed those couple few lines?

I thought not...
maybe you should finally admit you just don't get it or you refuse to get it
because after all it has been thoroughly explained....

at this point take it the way you see it... this is logical, yes?
you have no problem doing that towards some people without a second thought.

pandora · August 2012

polaris_x wrote:

we had a registry here in canada ... it cost a lot of money to start it up ... but now that it's running efficiently and smoothly and the police forces all use it ... our right wing gov't scrapped it ... :fp:

Why? and why did your country allow that with their votes? if that is the case...

Zoso · August 2012

:fp:

Thirty Bills Unpaid · August 2012

DS1119 wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

I think he's saying that by locking your doors you can't claim you are not living in fear, otherwise, why would you lock them?

the difference being, DS, is that locking your doors has no potential to harm anyone. Oh, and stop using the car anology. you are free to use it again if someone drives their vehicle into a shopping mall with the express intent of mowing people down 60 times in one year.

Sorry. Won't stop using the car analogy until it stops making logical sense. Or until it becomes harder to obtain a driver's license and vehicle than it does a firearm. These are very tragic stories...and I feel for those involved, I do, but I'm still waiting for the stories about legal fireamrs that didn't cause any harm yesterday. Also, why is no one in arms that 6 people were killed yesterday in a DWI accident in Albany?

Oh tthhhaaaat's why you keep presenting it! You haven't realized it doesn't make any logical sense. Now you know- the amount of everyday car usage obliterates the amount of gun usage and comparatively speaking (even though it is very difficult to compare a transportation mode with a killing weapon), the percentages reveal automobiles to be infinitely safer.

If you had presented an analogy where you spoke of how dangerous pavement is and how many falls we have each year on pavement that result in death or injury... you might have had a better chance of convincing someone that guns aren't as dangerous as everyday items.

You have a gun problem in your country, sir. You have an idiot problem too. It is hard to establish which people are the idiots at face value (at the point of purchase). The answer isn't more accessible guns. The answer is careful screening and limiting the types of weapons people can have. That might mean that a good person doesn't get a handgun to spin on his finger while shooting pop cans, but it does mean people can go watch Batman with some safeguards in place.

comebackgirl · August 2012

pandora wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

I'm sorry. You're going to have to diagram this one out for me. I'm not try to be facetious...you've really lost me. Yes...he had a plan...he was prepared...and sadly he was shot. I need you to explain that highlighted part for me. I understand that it doesn't apply to
a) Miss Ruby
b) the lady in your neighboring town
c) The police officer at Texas A&M

I'm having trouble understanding when those words DO apply.

Have you read the entire thought pages and pages back?
or do you only focus on the last lines and try to make them something to fit your agenda?

I thought so...

have you read the replies the countless time I have addressed those couple few lines?

I thought not...
maybe you should finally admit you just don't get it or you refuse to get it
because after all it has been thoroughly explained....

at this point take it the way you see it... this is logical, yes?
you have no problem doing that towards some people without a second thought.

I have read the full thought and I'm very willing to admit I don't get it. If you could help me understand in which situations those statements about victims apply, that would be great. Thanks.

pandora · August 2012

redrock wrote:

When will you understand that?

When will you understand the only people who follow laws
are the law abiding so why make more?
It will not stop mass killings, it will not stop Saturday night guns brawls,
What don't you get about that?

People are responsible and when will you understand
far more than a vast majority of legal gun owners are :fp: ?

so stop thinking you can control criminals by gun laws because you can't.
Stricter laws for punishment and getting illegal guns off the streets
is the way to make our country safer.
Not removing rights and restricting law abiding citizens.
If that works for you great.

To own a gun is a right that the vast majority here in the US will keep,
as we can see by the sheer numbers who own guns for protection, sport, and collecting.
Enforce the laws we have...

Zoso · August 2012

pandora wrote:

redrock wrote:

When will you understand that?

When will you understand the only people who follow laws
are the law abiding so why make more?
It will not stop mass killings, it will not stop Saturday night guns brawls,
What don't you get about that?

People are responsible and when will you understand
far more than a vast majority of legal gun owners are :fp: ?

so stop thinking you can control criminals by gun laws because you can't.
Stricter laws for punishment and getting illegal guns off the streets
is the way to make our country safer.
Not removing rights and restricting law abiding citizens.
If that works for you great.

To own a gun is a right that the vast majority here in the US will keep,
as we can see by the sheer numbers who own guns for protection, sport, and collecting.
Enforce the laws we have...

james holmes was a law abiding citizen UNTIL he commited the crime.. so maybe just maybe strict new gun laws would have prevented him from buying up so much ammo and dangerous weapons.. thats all we have been saying. otherwise 'law abiding citizens' are free to buy as much weapons and ammo as humanely possible until they feel like not being law abiding anymore.

JonnyPistachio · August 2012

pandora wrote:

redrock wrote:

When will you understand that?

When will you understand the only people who follow laws
are the law abiding so why make more?
It will not stop mass killings, it will not stop Saturday night guns brawls,
What don't you get about that?

You dont know that Holmes would've still pursued an AR-15 if they were illegal. He may have settled for the handguns. Less powerful weapons with less ammo could mean less injuries...How is that so hard to consider?

In the Giffords shooting in AZ, magazine limits were increased a few years before...he shot like 14 people, killing 6. He was finally stopped when he ran out of rounds (33). Had this gun been limited to 10-12 rounds, perhaps less people die. He was NOT A CRIMINAL before he became a criminal. Again, we're not just talking about street hug criminals here.

comebackgirl · August 2012

pandora wrote:

redrock wrote:

When will you understand that?

When will you understand the only people who follow laws
are the law abiding so why make more?
It will not stop mass killings, it will not stop Saturday night guns brawls,

.

So why have any laws at all?

Whats going wrong with the world? More shootings

Comments

Categories