Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Let Psychiatric Professionals Block Gun Purchase.


Off-Topic Discussions

401 to 450 of 549 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Guns serve no purpose, except to kill and maim.

Now here you've gone to far for me.

My family grew up in rural West Virginia, where a gun is both a very practical farm tool and the only real protection your family has given the proximity of law enforcement.

I don't want to take guns from sane, rational people. Just people who are certified by mental health professionals as mentally unstable and potentially dangerous.

As Cho, Loughner and Holmes all were.

Am I wrong though?

How are you going to use a gun as a farm on a tool?
How do you protect yourself with it?

By maiming and killing. You can't plant seeds with a gun. A gun isn't even close to being an efficient tool for slaughtering farm animals. You can't build a barn with it.

As I've said before in the thread, I am a proponent of hunting. I mostly have a problem with hand guns. The utility of a hand gun in hunting is fairly limited, it can be used, but its pretty situational and when that does come up... IT'S STILL TO KILL.

The only thing you can do with a gun that isn't killing, is target practice. Which is intended to make you better at killing.

People keep arguing things like "you'd need to ban cars too" but everyone keeps dancing around the fact, guns are only used to KILL. People need to stop being disingenuous and admit this fact.

If you defend yourself with a gun, you need to either kill your attacker, hurt them, or threaten to do it. You don't get them to stop by handing it to them. You don't get them to stop by giving them a gun safety course and inviting them to target practice. You don't get them to stop by talking about stories of hunting with your grandpa.

You either shoot them, or threaten to shoot them. That is all a gun is good for.

Shadow Lodge

Ciretose wrote:

I see it working this way. A doctor can file a hold, which goes in place immediately and notifies them if a patient tried to buy a gun. If the person who has the hold put on them appeals, the burden will be on the doctor who put the hold in place to file a report to a panel justifying the hold within, say, 30 days.

The panel has a set period of time to agree or disagree with the findings of the doctor and keep or lift the hold.

If the hold is kept, then the person can appeal again if they can find a doctor who will give them a clean bill of health.

You really don't think evil enough.

So the doctor denies someone their rights, and can do so for 30 days before STARTING to the justification. They wait 29 days then schedule a hearing, which will probably take months to actually happen. Next and, let me get this strait, they justify having the US legal system impose a penalty on someone before a non elected, non governmental agency composed of HIS peers, without giving the accused access to legal advice, expertise, and he has to pay for an opposing witness out of his own pocket.

Hell to the no. Our democracy is messy, inefficient and far from perfect but we do NOT outsource the decision making process of the criminal justice system to private individuals who are not elected by, appointed by, or beholden in any way to the people. No.

You do not need to go to private individuals and say "pretty please can i have my rights". They're YOURS. You have them. They're inherent until you screw up and they get taken away. We only deny people that under the most extreme circumstances, and sorry, but 10 dead people a year out of a country with 300 MILLION people is not an extreme enough circumstance to warrant what you want to do.

It would be pointless anyway. The NRA would just send people to shrink school to rubber stamp people being sane enough to buy guns and then hire them on as consultants if they lost their license.


And again to the comments of "if it would save one life it would be worth it". I have to say that is bull. The pleasure and enjoyment of millions of people not be cut short just to save a single life.

Would people be ok with outlawing all types of video games if it could save one single life? Because video games do cause deaths.

But guns are only good for killing. Except you know, when that it isn't true.

Still what are swords good for? Killing things. That is it. So we should outlaw all swords as well, especially from those gamers which already have a history of mental instability.

Look, if you want to make it easier to get around medical privacy laws so that mental health professionals can alert authorities to people that are possible dangers, so that those people show up on a radar to get closer inspection. I'd probably support that to some extent.

But the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of assaults than to commit them. Most violent crime is caused by people that are not mentally ill. On some level, blaming the mentally ill for all of society's problems is a bit disgusting.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Modules Subscriber
pres man wrote:

And again to the comments of "if it would save one life it would be worth it". I have to say that is bull. The pleasure and enjoyment of millions of people not be cut short just to save a single life.

Would people be ok with outlawing all types of video games if it could save one single life? Because video games do cause deaths.

But guns are only good for killing. Except you know, when that it isn't true.

Still what are swords good for? Killing things. That is it. So we should outlaw all swords as well, especially from those gamers which already have a history of mental instability.

Look, if you want to make it easier to get around medical privacy laws so that mental health professionals can alert authorities to people that are possible dangers, so that those people show up on a radar to get closer inspection. I'd probably support that to some extent.

But the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of assaults than to commit them. Most violent crime is caused by people that are not mentally ill. On some level, blaming the mentally ill for all of society's problems is a bit disgusting.

Well, I did not vote for a ban on all guns (even if I personally can´t share that view that the right to a gun is a unalterable right, but nevermind that. I accept that this does not fly with many US citizens). Just trying to control those guys, as ciretose stated, who are mad enought to randomly kill people. If that reduces the enjoyment of millions, I might conclude that millions enjoy random killings by lunatics. But I don´t.

Video games couse deaths because of addictive behaviour, either of the players themselves or of kids that can´t help themselves. That has nothing to do with murder by guns.

Of course, sport shootists don´t shoot for killing (hopefully). Still, Guns (and swords and bows, if you got to have them), are primarily and originally built for injuring and killing living beings. Sports use nowadays is a secondary use. Over here, ownership and usage of swords and crossbows and other instruments classified as weapons is indeed restricted. AFAIK, you can´t freely buy a baseball bat over here as it has been abused too often by neonazi idiots, for example. You need proof that you are actively playing. (Baseball is a minority sport over here). How many people get killed in the US in killing sprees with swords and bows per year? How big is the need to control these?

Implying that thinking that some amount of gun control for dangerously crazy people is akin to blaming those mentally ill for all problems is dusgusting, I´d say.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Modules Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ciretose wrote:

I see it working this way. A doctor can file a hold, which goes in place immediately and notifies them if a patient tried to buy a gun. If the person who has the hold put on them appeals, the burden will be on the doctor who put the hold in place to file a report to a panel justifying the hold within, say, 30 days.

The panel has a set period of time to agree or disagree with the findings of the doctor and keep or lift the hold.

If the hold is kept, then the person can appeal again if they can find a doctor who will give them a clean bill of health.

You really don't think evil enough.

So the doctor denies someone their rights, and can do so for 30 days before STARTING to the justification. They wait 29 days then schedule a hearing, which will probably take months to actually happen. Next and, let me get this strait, they justify having the US legal system impose a penalty on someone before a non elected, non governmental agency composed of HIS peers, without giving the accused access to legal advice, expertise, and he has to pay for an opposing witness out of his own pocket.

Hell to the no. Our democracy is messy, inefficient and far from perfect but we do NOT outsource the decision making process of the criminal justice system to private individuals who are not elected by, appointed by, or beholden in any way to the people. No.

You do not need to go to private individuals and say "pretty please can i have my rights". They're YOURS. You have them. They're inherent until you screw up and they get taken away. We only deny people that under the most extreme circumstances, and sorry, but 10 dead people a year out of a country with 300 MILLION people is not an extreme enough circumstance to warrant what you want to do.

It would be pointless anyway. The NRA would just send people to shrink school to rubber stamp people being sane enough to buy guns and then hire them on as consultants if they lost their license.

I don´t think that ciretose had hammered out all details of his idea down to the finest minutiae. That a proposal like that would have to be scrutinized as not to come into conflict with other laws or what would reasonably expected from such a procedure goes without saying.

Cheliax

I guess it is part of the human condition that we need to try and control something after some tragic event. Trying to control people's intent on hurthing eachother is like trying to control earthquakes or tidal waves, you simply can not and any attempt will just frustrate you. If you really think some new legislation will really prevent this in the future, like the Brady Bill, Laugtenburg Amendment ect, then have a ball. The day after it is passed some other poor soul will have their life ended by a Gun, a Knife, A Car, A Fist, ect. At some point you have to accept that you are vulnerable, unless you want to live in a bunker seperated from the world.


Stebehil wrote:
If that reduces the enjoyment of millions, I might conclude that millions enjoy random killings by lunatics. But I don´t.

I'm not quite understanding your second sentence here. Do you mean you don't enjoy random killings by lunatics, or do you mean you wouldn't come to that conclusion?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Nimon wrote:


I guess it is part of the human condition that we need to try and control something after some tragic event. Trying to control people's intent on hurthing eachother is like trying to control earthquakes or tidal waves, you simply can not and any attempt will just frustrate you. If you really think some new legislation will really prevent this in the future, like the Brady Bill, Laugtenburg Amendment ect, then have a ball. The day after it is passed some other poor soul will have their life ended by a Gun, a Knife, A Car, A Fist, ect. At some point you have to accept that you are vulnerable, unless you want to live in a bunker seperated from the world.

Of course. Absolute security is an illusion. But that was not the point of this thread. And trying to make these deaths a little less likely or even common might be worth the trouble IMO.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Modules Subscriber
pres man wrote:
Stebehil wrote:
If that reduces the enjoyment of millions, I might conclude that millions enjoy random killings by lunatics. But I don´t.
I'm not quite understanding your second sentence here. Do you mean you don't enjoy random killings by lunatics, or do you mean you wouldn't come to that conclusion?

Both, actually.


Stebehil wrote:
And trying to make these deaths a little less likely or even common might be worth the trouble IMO.

How "common" or "likely" do you think they actually are? This level of likely?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Modules Subscriber
pres man wrote:
Stebehil wrote:
And trying to make these deaths a little less likely or even common might be worth the trouble IMO.
How "common" or "likely" do you think they actually are? This level of likely?

Well, you got me there. This is as exaggerated on my part as the enjoyment of millions earlier...

Andoran

Irontruth wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Guns serve no purpose, except to kill and maim.

Now here you've gone to far for me.

My family grew up in rural West Virginia, where a gun is both a very practical farm tool and the only real protection your family has given the proximity of law enforcement.

I don't want to take guns from sane, rational people. Just people who are certified by mental health professionals as mentally unstable and potentially dangerous.

As Cho, Loughner and Holmes all were.

Am I wrong though?

How are you going to use a gun as a farm on a tool?
How do you protect yourself with it?

You are actually.

You kill the deer that eat your corn and the groundhogs that dig holes your livestock step in.

You kill the livestock who break their legs in the holes the groundhogs dig.

If you live in the mountains, you literally shoot bears.

Literally.

There are bears. And snakes, and wild pigs, coyote...

This is something urban people don't get. Guns actually serve a purpose.

That being said, in the wrong hands they are dangerous.

Where the line comes in is who decides which hands are right and wrong.

Andoran

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ciretose wrote:

I see it working this way. A doctor can file a hold, which goes in place immediately and notifies them if a patient tried to buy a gun. If the person who has the hold put on them appeals, the burden will be on the doctor who put the hold in place to file a report to a panel justifying the hold within, say, 30 days.

The panel has a set period of time to agree or disagree with the findings of the doctor and keep or lift the hold.

If the hold is kept, then the person can appeal again if they can find a doctor who will give them a clean bill of health.

You really don't think evil enough.

So the doctor denies someone their rights, and can do so for 30 days before STARTING to the justification. They wait 29 days then schedule a hearing, which will probably take months to actually happen. Next and, let me get this strait, they justify having the US legal system impose a penalty on someone before a non elected, non governmental agency composed of HIS peers, without giving the accused access to legal advice, expertise, and he has to pay for an opposing witness out of his own pocket.

Hell to the no. Our democracy is messy, inefficient and far from perfect but we do NOT outsource the decision making process of the criminal justice system to private individuals who are not elected by, appointed by, or beholden in any way to the people. No.

You do not need to go to private individuals and say "pretty please can i have my rights". They're YOURS. You have them. They're inherent until you screw up and they get taken away. We only deny people that under the most extreme circumstances, and sorry, but 10 dead people a year out of a country with 300 MILLION people is not an extreme enough circumstance to warrant what you want to do.

It would be pointless anyway. The NRA would just send people to shrink school to rubber stamp people being sane enough to buy guns and then hire them on as consultants if they lost their license.

You act like they are told they can't eat for 30 days.

They just can't buy additional guns for 30 days. Because someone who is an expert in crazy thinks they are crazy.

Taking someones car away is more of a hindrance, and we do that for not paying registration.

Andoran

Digitalelf wrote:
ciretose wrote:
And so we shouldn't take their license, because they are going to drive anyway?

I highly doubt that you read anything of my post past what you quoted, because it seems that you utterly failed to see my point...

I am talking about some people's willingness to ignore the law, any law; be it theft, drugs... Doesn't matter!

And just because a few people within our population (like you said, crime overall is going down) choose to ignore the law does not give anyone the right to pass laws that either punish those that abide by our laws, or infringe upon the rights bestowed upon us by our Constitution...

Because laws that do either of the above (again, laws in general, not specifically gun laws) tend to look good on the surface, but serve only to chip away at our rights and freedoms...

And THAT is what I have a problem with...

I did, it was full of flawed logic and silly ellipses.

You are saying laws are implying laws are as pointless as ending every sentence with three dots because bad people won't follow laws anyway.

...


some people who have psych issues are no threat to themselves or others......

if you must find a way to limit gun ownership, than have perspective gun purchaser be talked to by a behavior analyst.....

but then in the words of my favorite bumper sticker of all time

" If we ban guns, can we use swords"


Steelfiredragon wrote:

some people who have psych issues are no threat to themselves or others......

if you must find a way to limit gun ownership, than have perspective gun purchaser be talked to by a behavior analyst.....

No one has suggested that everyone with psych issues should be barred from owning guns.

Andoran

Steelfiredragon wrote:

some people who have psych issues are no threat to themselves or others......

if you must find a way to limit gun ownership, than have perspective gun purchaser be talked to by a behavior analyst.....

but then in the words of my favorite bumper sticker of all time

" If we ban guns, can we use swords"

Except when we introduced the Brady Bill gun violence went down and sword and knife violence didn't go up to compensate.

If your doctor thinks it is fine for you to have a gun, great.

If your doctor is so concerned about you having a gun they are willing to go before a review board to discuss why you shouldn't have a gun...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Guns serve no purpose, except to kill and maim.

Now here you've gone to far for me.

My family grew up in rural West Virginia, where a gun is both a very practical farm tool and the only real protection your family has given the proximity of law enforcement.

I don't want to take guns from sane, rational people. Just people who are certified by mental health professionals as mentally unstable and potentially dangerous.

As Cho, Loughner and Holmes all were.

Am I wrong though?

How are you going to use a gun as a farm on a tool?
How do you protect yourself with it?

You are actually.

You kill the deer that eat your corn and the groundhogs that dig holes your livestock step in.

You kill the livestock who break their legs in the holes the groundhogs dig.

If you live in the mountains, you literally shoot bears.

Literally.

There are bears. And snakes, and wild pigs, coyote...

This is something urban people don't get. Guns actually serve a purpose.

That being said, in the wrong hands they are dangerous.

Where the line comes in is who decides which hands are right and wrong.

Every purpose you just listed involved killing.

So again, how am I wrong in saying that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill?

Everything you just listed involved killing. You were killing animals, and I'm not saying it's wrong to kill animals. I am saying that the primary purpose and use of a gun is to kill.


pres man wrote:

And again to the comments of "if it would save one life it would be worth it". I have to say that is bull. The pleasure and enjoyment of millions of people not be cut short just to save a single life.

Would people be ok with outlawing all types of video games if it could save one single life? Because video games do cause deaths.

But guns are only good for killing. Except you know, when that it isn't true.

Still what are swords good for? Killing things. That is it. So we should outlaw all swords as well, especially from those gamers which already have a history of mental instability.

Look, if you want to make it easier to get around medical privacy laws so that mental health professionals can alert authorities to people that are possible dangers, so that those people show up on a radar to get closer inspection. I'd probably support that to some extent.

But the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of assaults than to commit them. Most violent crime is caused by people that are not mentally ill. On some level, blaming the mentally ill for all of society's problems is a bit disgusting.

Texas already bans swords in public.

I addressed target shooting. I'd be interested if you had some sort of usage statistics, that showed that target shooters had no interest in either hunting or self-defense I'd be willing to look at it.

But again, hunting and self-defense require the gun to be used to kill or threat to kill.

Andoran

Irontruth wrote:


Every purpose you just listed involved killing.

So again, how am I wrong in saying that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill?

Everything you just listed involved killing. You were killing animals, and I'm not saying it's wrong to kill animals. I am saying that the primary purpose and use of a gun is to kill.

Just to put card on the table, what do you want the rules about guns to be.


Whatever brings that blue line at the top, down at least to the level of everything else.

Along with reduced suicides and accidental deaths.

That means probably reducing handgun availability as a whole. How that is achieved, I don't know for sure, short of a near outright ban on private ownership.

I am in favor of keeping ownership of rifles and shotguns pretty much as they are now. Those are indeed useful tools on a farm and useful for hunting. Hunting alone is an ecological tool that we need to keep in our country. I know in Minnesota and Wisconsin, there are wild plant species that are going extinct because we have too many deer, plus the over-population of deer is spreading disease to livestock.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:

Whatever brings that blue line at the top, down at least to the level of everything else.

Along with reduced suicides and accidental deaths.

That means probably reducing handgun availability as a whole. How that is achieved, I don't know for sure, short of a near outright ban on private ownership.

I am in favor of keeping ownership of rifles and shotguns pretty much as they are now. Those are indeed useful tools on a farm and useful for hunting. Hunting alone is an ecological tool that we need to keep in our country. I know in Minnesota and Wisconsin, there are wild plant species that are going extinct because we have too many deer, plus the over-population of deer is spreading disease to livestock.

I just have an outsiders view, of course. Your statement is one I could wholly subscribe to. Alas, from what I´ve learned about gun ownership and gun control in the US, it almost seems to me that a few thousand deaths a year are some kind of collateral damage in the minds of some people; that the right to own a gun (from a 200+ year old law bill, which might be a bit dated) is valued higher than several thousand lives a year to some. So, this is probably not gonna happen.

I have read the arguments against a gun ban - getting illegal guns is easy, laws don´t stop criminals etc. But if you don´t start somewhere, it can´t get better at all. Getting illegal guns is partly so easy because there are so many guns around in the first place, which probably get stolen in burglaries as well. No, laws don´t stop criminals - seriously, then why have laws at all? And yes, most of the problems leading to high crime rates are due to the hopelessness of young men (for the most part), who can´t get decent schooling, much less jobs. This is indeed a point that needs to be taken very seriously if things are going to change. If the social problems in the US are not adressed thoroughly, it might lead to even bigger problems. A big part of economical problems in many countries is due to a lack of proper education of the youth, who continue to be unemployed or having only low-end jobs later. You don´t need so many unskilled laborers these days, if your economy is to stay on top.

Shadow Lodge

Cirotose wrote:

You act like they are told they can't eat for 30 days.

They just can't buy additional guns for 30 days. Because someone who is an expert in crazy thinks they are crazy.

Taking someones car away is more of a hindrance, and we do that for not paying registration.

We didn't have cars back in 1776 or you probably would have that problem. Gun ownership is a right in this country, its a legal fact you have to deal with. Automobile driving is legally a privilege, that makes it easier to deal with people abusing it.

You want to outsource the governments decision making process to unelected experts because the safeguards we have on individual liberties are too burdensom to be bothered with. No dammit. Abrogating the right to a trial by jury and treating people as guilty until they can prove themselves innocent and spending millions of taxpayer dollars is NOT something you do for a problem that kills fewer people every year than bee stings.

As screwed up as the system is, its safeguards are there for a reason. People don't look at history and see what life was like before we had them. You take it for granted that the people in power will do the right thing if they have other legal options.


Stebehil wrote:
I can not imagine a scenario in which religious freedom or the freedom of speech result in people getting killed, unless the religion in question demands to kill "unbelievers", or the free speaker incites violent riots - both cases are an infringement on other peoples rights (the universal human right on being alive and being not bodily harmed, to be precise). If religion or free speech were abused in this manner as to lead to bodily harm or death of others, yes, in these special cases, these freedoms need to be curtailed.

I'd like to forget guns for a second and look at this, because I think it's more general, and more important a point. With very few, almost cliched exceptions (yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre), free speech does not "cause" violent riots. Rather, violent rioters cause violent riots, generally as a gambit to stifle debate and thereby legitimize insane positions.

If you say I'm wrong, and I immediately bash in your head with a baseball bat, I am NOT allowed to claim self-defense. No court on earth will find you guilty of suicide on the basis that your speech obviously "incited" my action. That's ridiculous. But otherwise reasonable people will somehow see that as OK when there is a group involved, rather than a single individual.

Indeed, laws that place blame on speech as "incitement" blatantly cater to a bully's mentality: any group of people can always lay claim to the sole acceptable viewpoint to espouse, no matter how unreasonable that viewpoint, by simply rioting at the slightest hint of an opposing view. Sure, a few of them will be arrested for rioting, but the precedent is then set that speaking out against X is "incitement," and therefore barred and illegal in the future.

Pretend that Adolph is a member of a bizarre cult of holocaust-deniers. He yells his false "facts" from every street corner. One day, an elderly Jew stops and says to the other onlookers, "I can prove that the Holocaust was real! Here are the numbers tattood on my arm from one of the camps! This man is living in a dangerous, evil fantasy world!" Immediately Bjorn, Christian, and Dieter, members of Adolph's cult, murder the old Jew and then lay siege to the nearest Anti-Defamation League building, because the old Jew's speech "incited" them to violence. Yes, the three are arrested and tried for murder, but now Adolph and his friends Erich, Friedrich, Gerhardt, and Heinrich continue to deny the Holocaust -- with the difference that contradicting them is now "incitement" and is therefore illegal.

A small handful of them go to jail in exchange for a monopoly on one side of the dialogue. That's a trade that any extremist group would be VERY happy to make.

The Jyllands-Posten affair is an obvious example. The fact of the matter is that cartoons do not cause riots -- we know this because there are any number of sarcastic cartoons, lampooning any number of other groups/organizations, which caused no such reaction. Rather, it was the rioters in this case who used the cartoons as an excuse to curtail speech critical of their views. Passing laws restricting speech critical of Islam does not support moderate Muslims nor protect non-Muslims; rather, it emboldens extremists to make ever more violent reactions in order to gain further dominance of the international dialogue. The prohibition against killing unbelievers, in a sense, is potentially over-rided by a supposed "right" to riot because of "incitement."

Falling for that sort of setup plays directly into the hands of every extremist on earth.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Hunting alone is an ecological tool that we need to keep in our country. I know in Minnesota and Wisconsin, there are wild plant species that are going extinct because we have too many deer, plus the over-population of deer is spreading disease to livestock.

Bring back the wolves then.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
You are saying laws are implying laws are as pointless as ending every sentence with three dots because bad people won't follow laws anyway.

No, and again, you fail to see the point...

I am saying laws that unduly infringe upon our civil liberties are a bad thing...

I bring up people disregarding laws anyway because WHEN COUPLED with laws that unduly infringe upon the rights and freedoms of the law abiding, you have accomplished NOTHING...

If a law can be made that makes something illegal but does not infringe upon the basic rights and freedoms bestowed upon us by our Constitution, then I am all for it...

Otherwise, no...

And let clarify something for you...

Unlike what you've alluded to in earlier posts, I not in favor of just somehow magically rounding up all the crazies and committing them...

Aside from the impossibility of it, it would be unconstitutional...

What I have said is that if someone who has seen a psychiatrist (no matter if it was voluntary or involuntary), and during their evaluation they show that they are not capable of playing nicey nice with the rest of society (which seems was the case with the three you mention), then, THEN, you place them under professional supervision...

See, no magic involved, nor any undue infringement upon personal rights or freedoms...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
stuff

I´m not sure I´m getting your point here. I wanted to point out that free speech does not and can not cause deaths, and thus, a ban on free speech is not comparable to banning guns, much less banning the purchase of guns from a certain group of people deemed mentally ill in such a way as to pose a threat to the public by experts.

Banning people who have called for violence against "others" in public speech from speaking in public might be justified, as might be disallowing a religion that openly calls for violence and murder against others. AFAIK, using the right of free speech to call for violence is seen as an abuse of that right here and is not covered by that right.

Andoran

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Cirotose wrote:

You act like they are told they can't eat for 30 days.

They just can't buy additional guns for 30 days. Because someone who is an expert in crazy thinks they are crazy.

Taking someones car away is more of a hindrance, and we do that for not paying registration.

We didn't have cars back in 1776 or you probably would have that problem. Gun ownership is a right in this country, its a legal fact you have to deal with. Automobile driving is legally a privilege, that makes it easier to deal with people abusing it.

You want to outsource the governments decision making process to unelected experts because the safeguards we have on individual liberties are too burdensom to be bothered with. No dammit. Abrogating the right to a trial by jury and treating people as guilty until they can prove themselves innocent and spending millions of taxpayer dollars is NOT something you do for a problem that kills fewer people every year than bee stings.

As screwed up as the system is, its safeguards are there for a reason. People don't look at history and see what life was like before we had them. You take it for granted that the people in power will do the right thing if they have other legal options.

You've done nothing to back up your less than bee sting argument.

Over 100,000 shootings a year. 3 of the last 4 mass killings in the last 5 years involved people who would have been on the list. I am quite certain many more lesser shootings and murders would also be prevented.

If even 1% of handgun suicides are averted, that is 187 people a year.

Bees kill 53 a year.

Andoran

Digitalelf wrote:
ciretose wrote:
You are saying laws are implying laws are as pointless as ending every sentence with three dots because bad people won't follow laws anyway.
No, and again, you fail to see the point...

Maybe I lost it in all the ellipses...

Or maybe your argument falls apart under scrutiny, because it is full of false assumptions and a poor understanding of systems.

Either way, your "point" was based on the magic supervision fairy following people and searching there house and person not infringing on their civil liberties, but not allowing them to purchase a gone will infringe...meaning you fail at understanding the term "Civil Liberties"

Shadow Lodge

Cirteose wrote:
You've done nothing to back up your less than bee sting argument.

I'm going off your numbers. Keep in mind that the numbers you want to put out there and what you're actually doing are quite different.

You can't just throw out all handgun deaths because you're not preventing all hand gun deaths.

You can't throw out all gun deaths caused by crazy people because not all crazy people are designated as such. (The neo nazi, Loughner)

You can't even throw out all gun deaths caused by crazy people who have been designated as crazy because you're not taking their guns away. Some of them (Holmes) had enough guns before they were designated.

You would then further have to subtract the people who get off the list: Because you absolutely need some way to get off the list.

Then you'd have to come up with an ad hoc way of reducing the number to compensate for people who could get illegal guns.

THEN you need to factor in the increased suicides and possible homicides from scared gun owners who might otherwise have gotten effective help.

The stinging menace starts to look scary compared to that.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
you fail at understanding the term "Civil Liberties"
Dictionary.com wrote:


civil liberty

noun Usually, civil liberties.

1. the freedom of a citizen to exercise customary rights, as of speech or assembly, without unwarranted or arbitrary interference by the government.

2. such a right as guaranteed by the laws of a country, as in the U.S. by the Bill of Rights.

What's not to understand about that??

If a person is already seeing a psychiatrist, and the psychiatrist, through their initial and standard evaluation process, thinks this person is incapable of not acting upon thoughts of killing others, then that person needs further evaluation.

And the part about searching their home, I'm not talking about using the same methods that law enforcement uses when conduction a raid for goodness sake!

All I'm suggesting is the same kind of inspection of someone's home that social workers usually perform, and that these visits be totally random.

Doing this would infringe upon no-one's civil liberties...

Andoran

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Cirteose wrote:
You've done nothing to back up your less than bee sting argument.

I'm going off your numbers. Keep in mind that the numbers you want to put out there and what you're actually doing are quite different.

You can't just throw out all handgun deaths because you're not preventing all hand gun deaths.

You can't throw out all gun deaths caused by crazy people because not all crazy people are designated as such. (The neo nazi, Loughner)

You can't even throw out all gun deaths caused by crazy people who have been designated as crazy because you're not taking their guns away. Some of them (Holmes) had enough guns before they were designated.

You would then further have to subtract the people who get off the list: Because you absolutely need some way to get off the list.

Then you'd have to come up with an ad hoc way of reducing the number to compensate for people who could get illegal guns.

THEN you need to factor in the increased suicides and possible homicides from scared gun owners who might otherwise have gotten effective help.

The stinging menace starts to look scary compared to that.

I think you are completely wrong about the "scared gun owners" who won't. The suicidal will likely agree to be added voluntarily through the therapeutic process, and if they fall into a depressed state they will have one less method available. If it works 1% of the time, 187 people a year.

I think you are ignoring the involuntarily committed were not seeking help in the first place, that the laws are currently in place, but enforcement is being blocked by the NRA. We don't know yet if Holmes had prior treatment before moving to Colorado, we only know his most recent therapist was so concerned she went to police, but they either didn't or couldn't act even to the point to prevent him buying more guns and ammunition.

Which he did.

I think you are ignoring I only pointed to 1% change in suicide along being 187 deaths a year. It is more likely somewhere in the 5% range. So multiply that.

I think you are ignoring a lot of things that are inconvenient to your argument and emphasizing "concerns" that aren't.

I googled "gun homicides by mentally ill" but no one seems to have done the study yet.

But why do we need epipens. That is only 53 deaths a year.

Andoran

Digitalelf wrote:
ciretose wrote:
you fail at understanding the term "Civil Liberties"
Dictionary.com wrote:


civil liberty

noun Usually, civil liberties.

1. the freedom of a citizen to exercise customary rights, as of speech or assembly, without unwarranted or arbitrary interference by the government.

2. such a right as guaranteed by the laws of a country, as in the U.S. by the Bill of Rights.

What's not to understand about that??

If a person is already seeing a psychiatrist, and the psychiatrist, through their initial and standard evaluation process, thinks this person is incapable of not acting upon thoughts of killing others, then that person needs further evaluation.

And the part about searching their home, I'm not talking about using the same methods that law enforcement uses when conduction a raid for goodness sake!

All I'm suggesting is the same kind of inspection of someone's home that social workers usually perform, and that these visits be totally random.

Doing this would infringe upon no-one's civil liberties...

Would someone like to explain to Digitial Elf how they feel about forced search of homes and civil liberties.

I think this post pretty much wins my argument for me, so I'm done with him.

Unless you all would rather subject yourself to having you house subject to search or else you will be committed than just not be able to buy a gun until the appeal gets through.

...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ciretose wrote:

Would someone like to explain to Digitial Elf how they feel about forced search of homes and civil liberties.

I think this post pretty much wins my argument for me, so I'm done with him.

Unless you all would rather subject yourself to having you house subject to search or else you will be committed than just not be able to buy a gun until the appeal gets through.

You read so much into my post that is not there! Or, you simply do not read my posts...

Forced searches? Never said that! What I did say was having a social worker visit unannounced and inspect the home in the same way any social worker going to somebody’s home inspects it. A social worker is merely checking up on a patient.

How is that an UNDUE violation to a civil liberty?

Dictionary.com wrote:

un•due [uhn-doo]

adjective
1. unwarranted; excessive: undue haste.

2. inappropriate; unjustifiable; improper: undue influence.

3. not owed or currently payable

Andoran

Do you know what kind of inspections social workers perform?

I do. In fact, I do home investigations as part of my job. If the social worker has any safety concerns, they will quite often bring law enforcement with them.

So at this point you are saying it is fine to have a psychologist order me to let someone come to my house and search, possibly with law enforcement (I am dangerous after all) and if I refuse, I will be committed.

But that is less of a burden on me than not being allowed to buy a gun.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
you are saying it is fine to have a psychologist order me to let someone come to my house and search, possibly with law enforcement (I am dangerous after all) and if I refuse, I will be committed.

Perhaps I've been a little too vague in the details. If a person is already seeing a psychiatrist and through their evaluation, they (the psychiatrist) think the person needs further evaluation, then the laws already in place need still be followed. So, if that person needs further evaluation, and is seeing the psychiatrist of their own volition, then the psychiatrist would need a court order to perform these further evaluations (and provide the necessary basis on why they have come to that conclusion). If on the other hand, the person is seeing the psychiatrist because of something like a court order, then the psychiatrist already has the tools necessary to perform this further evaluation (because that person has already been to court and lost whatever case he was there for).

Either way, part of the court ordered "further evaluation", would include mandated random visits from social workers who may or may not be accompanied by law enforcement officers.

Since these visits would be mandated by the court, if you refuse, then yes, you would have to spend the time it takes for your evaluation to be completed while in the “hospital”.

This is not an undue violation of anybody's rights (and undue is the key word here) because that person was in front of a judge, and had the opportunity to plead his case and lost...


Digitalelf wrote:
ciretose wrote:
you are saying it is fine to have a psychologist order me to let someone come to my house and search, possibly with law enforcement (I am dangerous after all) and if I refuse, I will be committed.

Perhaps I've been a little too vague in the details. If a person is already seeing a psychiatrist and through their evaluation, they (the psychiatrist) think the person needs further evaluation, then the laws already in place need still be followed. So, if that person needs further evaluation, and is seeing the psychiatrist of their own volition, then the psychiatrist would need a court order to perform these further evaluations (and provide the necessary basis on why they have come to that conclusion). If on the other hand, the person is seeing the psychiatrist because of something like a court order, then the psychiatrist already has the tools necessary to perform this further evaluation.

Either way, part of the court ordered "further evaluation", would include mandated random visits from social workers who may or may not be accompanied by law enforcement officers.

Since these visits would be mandated by the court, if you refuse, then yes, you would have to spend the time it takes for your evaluation to be completed in the “hospital”.

This is not an undue violation of anybody's rights (and undue is the key word here)...

But you wouldn't accept, as part of these court-mandated procedures, stopping this person from buying guns?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
But you wouldn't accept, as part of these court-mandated procedures, stopping this person from buying guns?

It is already a felony for someone that has been adjudicated "incompetent to manage their own affairs" to buy a firearm (and that is what these "court-mandated procedures" would mean from a legal standpoint).

Qadira

Stebehil wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
stuff

I´m not sure I´m getting your point here. I wanted to point out that free speech does not and can not cause deaths, and thus, a ban on free speech is not comparable to banning guns, much less banning the purchase of guns from a certain group of people deemed mentally ill in such a way as to pose a threat to the public by experts.

Banning people who have called for violence against "others" in public speech from speaking in public might be justified, as might be disallowing a religion that openly calls for violence and murder against others. AFAIK, using the right of free speech to call for violence is seen as an abuse of that right here and is not covered by that right.

Guns do not cause death, irresponsible and evil people do. But you have no problem with speech, only those evil guns. Lets put this a way you might get. Would it have been better over there if the 6 million jews had the means to defend themselves or is it better that Hitler and Mousilini disarmed them?

Qadira

Digitalelf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But you wouldn't accept, as part of these court-mandated procedures, stopping this person from buying guns?
It is already a felony for someone that has been adjudicated "incompetent to manage their own affairs" to buy a firearm (and that is what these "court ordered procedures" would mean from a legal standpoint).

As it stands you must be found legally incompetent.

What he wants is a "check this box" for the shrink and you have to fight the court to get the rights back

Andoran

Andrew R wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But you wouldn't accept, as part of these court-mandated procedures, stopping this person from buying guns?
It is already a felony for someone that has been adjudicated "incompetent to manage their own affairs" to buy a firearm (and that is what these "court ordered procedures" would mean from a legal standpoint).

As it stands you must be found legally incompetent.

What he wants is a "check this box" for the shrink and you have to fight the court to get the rights back

Nope. You would have to file a full report with the court and get a judge to sign off. Not hard to do, as a judge isn't generally going to question such things...unless the person gains a reputation for filing them without cause.

Then that report would be subject to appeal to a review panel.

Which is what I've said from the beginning.


Removal of someone's constitutional rights + comment of "not hard to do" = disturbing feeling

Qadira

ciretose wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But you wouldn't accept, as part of these court-mandated procedures, stopping this person from buying guns?
It is already a felony for someone that has been adjudicated "incompetent to manage their own affairs" to buy a firearm (and that is what these "court ordered procedures" would mean from a legal standpoint).

As it stands you must be found legally incompetent.

What he wants is a "check this box" for the shrink and you have to fight the court to get the rights back

Nope. You would have to file a full report with the court and get a judge to sign off. Not hard to do, as a judge isn't generally going to question such things...unless the person gains a reputation for filing them without cause.

Then that report would be subject to appeal to a review panel.

Which is what I've said from the beginning.

I think something like that already exists in most if not all states.

Andoran

Andrew R wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But you wouldn't accept, as part of these court-mandated procedures, stopping this person from buying guns?
It is already a felony for someone that has been adjudicated "incompetent to manage their own affairs" to buy a firearm (and that is what these "court ordered procedures" would mean from a legal standpoint).

As it stands you must be found legally incompetent.

What he wants is a "check this box" for the shrink and you have to fight the court to get the rights back

Nope. You would have to file a full report with the court and get a judge to sign off. Not hard to do, as a judge isn't generally going to question such things...unless the person gains a reputation for filing them without cause.

Then that report would be subject to appeal to a review panel.

Which is what I've said from the beginning.

I think something like that already exists in most if not all states.

Which I've also said. The problem being the transference between states and the states that don't.

Like if you move to Virginia from another state. Or if you live in Arizona where it doesn't. Or you come from California to Colorado and Colorado doesn't...

Weird coincidence that...

Andoran

pres man wrote:
Removal of someone's constitutional rights + comment of "not hard to do" = disturbing feeling

You can indict a ham sandwich. In part because some people want the "bad" people off the street ASAP!

It never ceases to amuse me how often the "my gun rights" people are the same ones who think Gitmo is fine.

It only matters if it effects me!


ciretose wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But you wouldn't accept, as part of these court-mandated procedures, stopping this person from buying guns?
It is already a felony for someone that has been adjudicated "incompetent to manage their own affairs" to buy a firearm (and that is what these "court ordered procedures" would mean from a legal standpoint).

As it stands you must be found legally incompetent.

What he wants is a "check this box" for the shrink and you have to fight the court to get the rights back

Nope. You would have to file a full report with the court and get a judge to sign off. Not hard to do, as a judge isn't generally going to question such things...unless the person gains a reputation for filing them without cause.

Then that report would be subject to appeal to a review panel.

Which is what I've said from the beginning.

I think something like that already exists in most if not all states.

Which I've also said. The problem being the transference between states and the states that don't.

Like if you move to Virginia from another state. Or if you live in Arizona where it doesn't. Or you come from California to Colorado and Colorado doesn't...

Weird coincidence that...

Wrong. Its already federal law.(scroll down to section c: prohibited persons; article 5.) This is why I assumed you meant a therapists checks a box and there goes their rights. What you want, is already done.

Andoran

TheWhiteknife wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But you wouldn't accept, as part of these court-mandated procedures, stopping this person from buying guns?
It is already a felony for someone that has been adjudicated "incompetent to manage their own affairs" to buy a firearm (and that is what these "court ordered procedures" would mean from a legal standpoint).

As it stands you must be found legally incompetent.

What he wants is a "check this box" for the shrink and you have to fight the court to get the rights back

Nope. You would have to file a full report with the court and get a judge to sign off. Not hard to do, as a judge isn't generally going to question such things...unless the person gains a reputation for filing them without cause.

Then that report would be subject to appeal to a review panel.

Which is what I've said from the beginning.

I think something like that already exists in most if not all states.

Which I've also said. The problem being the transference between states and the states that don't.

Like if you move to Virginia from another state. Or if you live in Arizona where it doesn't. Or you come from California to Colorado and Colorado doesn't...

Weird coincidence that...

Wrong. Its already federal law.(scroll down to section c: prohibited persons; article 5.) This is why I assumed you meant a therapists checks a box and there goes their rights. What you want, is already done.

Except it isn't, because the states are responsible for gathering the info and updating the database, and the NRA has gotten legislation passed in many states that doesn't allow them to comply.

In Virginia for example, Cho wasn't in the database because the wording in the state and federal didn't match. In Virginia they can only be added if they are committed involuntarily to a mental hospital.

So although he was deemed "an imminent danger to himself because of mental illness" in a Virginia court in 2005, because he was allowed to voluntarily get outpatient treatment rather than being involuntarily committed, he couldn't be added to the list.

Look it up.


Andrew R wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But you wouldn't accept, as part of these court-mandated procedures, stopping this person from buying guns?
It is already a felony for someone that has been adjudicated "incompetent to manage their own affairs" to buy a firearm (and that is what these "court ordered procedures" would mean from a legal standpoint).

As it stands you must be found legally incompetent.

What he wants is a "check this box" for the shrink and you have to fight the court to get the rights back

Nope. You would have to file a full report with the court and get a judge to sign off. Not hard to do, as a judge isn't generally going to question such things...unless the person gains a reputation for filing them without cause.

Then that report would be subject to appeal to a review panel.

Which is what I've said from the beginning.

I think something like that already exists in most if not all states.

Right. So this horrible offense against our civil rights, which will end freedom and the American way of life, is the way things already work in most states. Except that, as many keep claiming, it only affects the law-abiding, since it's usually easy to move to or just visit another state where you're not on the list and get your guns there.

So should we try make sure the states talk to each other and use (at least) similar criteria or should we repeal all the state laws since they take away our rights?


ciretose wrote:
long post cut for space

No doubt. So what you want isnt a new law, but for the feds to start enforcing existing law, *(which would undoubtably require holding states accountable for failing to comply)* am I understanding correctly?

Edit marked with *

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Andrew R wrote:
Stebehil wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
stuff

I´m not sure I´m getting your point here. I wanted to point out that free speech does not and can not cause deaths, and thus, a ban on free speech is not comparable to banning guns, much less banning the purchase of guns from a certain group of people deemed mentally ill in such a way as to pose a threat to the public by experts.

Banning people who have called for violence against "others" in public speech from speaking in public might be justified, as might be disallowing a religion that openly calls for violence and murder against others. AFAIK, using the right of free speech to call for violence is seen as an abuse of that right here and is not covered by that right.

Guns do not cause death, irresponsible and evil people do. But you have no problem with speech, only those evil guns. Lets put this a way you might get. Would it have been better over there if the 6 million jews had the means to defend themselves or is it better that Hitler and Mousilini disarmed them?

Uh just to point out the reason Hitler got into the position where he could disarm them is because he surrounded the German parliment building with his armed milita and forced the guys inside to give absalute power over to him.

401 to 450 of 549 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Let Psychiatric Professionals Block Gun Purchase. All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.