|
The AR-15 is *not* a pea-shooter by any stretch of the imagination.An AR-15 is WIDELY available in .22lr; with either a dedicated upper receiver/barrel or the extremely popular “conversion kit” which is just a different bolt and magazine you use in your existing .223/5.56 firearm)...
In fact, it is EQUALLY available in a multitude of calibers from .22 - .308 (with many of the different calibers using the same receiver)...
99.9% of AR-15 receivers are marked "Multi Cal" instead of .223 and/or 5.56 because of this...
The .22 is very popular because it is far cheaper to shoot. especially when throwing hundreds of rounds in a weekend like some folks do.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what would put us on par with European levels of crime and violence? Getting 14% of the population caught in a vicious cycle of gang violence and poverty out of it. You know, improving education and opportunity. Because the sad fact is, most of our crime stats are fueled by black on black crime in the poorest neighborhoods in America, not by random theater shootings. If you remove black on black crime from our crime statistics, we are right in the middle of the pack for Western European crime rates, across the board.
But that doesn't make good sensationalist TV, and involves actually DOING SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES EFFORT AND DEDICATION instead of armchair politicking. It would also require dropping the PC BS and tackling the issue head on. It is criminal how much we allow the cycle to persist, paying lip service and doing nothing of substance to correct the problem. Everyone wants more laws, but guess what? Any new laws would just impact that community harder than it does lily white America. Yeah, let's incarcerate more black people and destroy more black families, like our incredibly racist "War on Drugs" does. Yeah, that little experiment made life in the 'hood sooooo much better.
You know how New York City solved the crime problem in Manhattan? They forced the black people out and turned their neighborhoods into yuppie and hipster hell holes. That isn't a solution, that's sweeping the problem under the rug and not addressing the disservice we've done that community.
Get over yourselves, y'all are discussing the statistical equivalent of being hit by lightning while being bitten by a shark and ignoring the fact that, for white America, a lot of this crap is academic. More gun control isn't the answer to crime in this country, more education and opportunity for our most vulnerable citizens is.
So I did some research (skimmed articles on wikipedia), and the Nazis didn't change the gun laws until 1938--which is almost halfway through their "1000-Year" Reich, and after the Reichstag fire trial and the Nuremberg laws. I couldn't, in the time I invested, find out whether it was before or after Kristallnacht.
They were, as expected, draconian (you pretty much had to be a Nazi to have a gun) but I'd say people had had plenty of time to "wake up" before that.
I already forgot what the Weimar Republic laws were.
|
|
The .22 is very popular because it is far cheaper to shoot. especially when throwing hundreds of rounds in a weekend like some folks do.The AR-15 is *not* a pea-shooter by any stretch of the imagination.An AR-15 is WIDELY available in .22lr; with either a dedicated upper receiver/barrel or the extremely popular “conversion kit” which is just a different bolt and magazine you use in your existing .223/5.56 firearm)...
In fact, it is EQUALLY available in a multitude of calibers from .22 - .308 (with many of the different calibers using the same receiver)...
99.9% of AR-15 receivers are marked "Multi Cal" instead of .223 and/or 5.56 because of this...
Yeah, but a .22 rimfire Remington round isn't a .223 full metal jacket round. The 5.56 rounds are a lot more expensive than the .22 Remingtons.
Eh flagging is for those that are too thin skinned for debate and cannot come up with a good response
True dat.
[Shudders at the thought of agreeing with Citizen R]
|
|
So I did some research (skimmed articles on wikipedia), and the Nazis didn't change the gun laws until 1938--which is almost halfway through their "1000-Year" Reich, and after the Reichstag fire trial and the Nuremberg laws. I couldn't, in the time I invested, find out whether it was before or after Kristallnacht.
They were, as expected, draconian (you pretty much had to be a Nazi to have a gun) but I'd say people had had plenty of time to "wake up" before that.
I already forgot what the Weimar Republic laws were.
That's also, if you'll remember, right before they started rounding up the Jews. The German public at large didn't feel terribly oppressed yet(the only people being messed with to that point were Socialists, Jews and the intelligentsia, not people Joe Sixpack gave a crap about).
It's pretty much the origin of the "First, they came for the Communists" line.
|
|
You know what would put us on par with European levels of crime and violence? Getting 14% of the population caught in a vicious cycle of gang violence and poverty out of it. You know, improving education and opportunity. Because the sad fact is, most of our crime stats are fueled by black on black crime in the poorest neighborhoods in America, not by random theater shootings. If you remove black on black crime from our crime statistics, we are right in the middle of the pack for Western European crime rates, across the board.
But that doesn't make good sensationalist TV, and involves actually DOING SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES EFFORT AND DEDICATION instead of armchair politicking. It would also require dropping the PC BS and tackling the issue head on. It is criminal how much we allow the cycle to persist, paying lip service and doing nothing of substance to correct the problem. Everyone wants more laws, but guess what? Any new laws would just impact that community harder than it does lily white America. Yeah, let's incarcerate more black people and destroy more black families, like our incredibly racist "War on Drugs" does. Yeah, that little experiment made life in the 'hood sooooo much better.
You know how New York City solved the crime problem in Manhattan? They forced the black people out and turned their neighborhoods into yuppie and hipster hell holes. That isn't a solution, that's sweeping the problem under the rug and not addressing the disservice we've done that community.
Get over yourselves, y'all are discussing the statistical equivalent of being hit by lightning while being bitten by a shark and ignoring the fact that, for white America, a lot of this crap is academic. More gun control isn't the answer to crime in this country, more education and opportunity for our most vulnerable citizens is.
Choosing not to do drugs and commit crimes would be a good start there. No "racist" government program makes anyone do either. Personal responsability beats all other factors, if they want to fail they will
This is more of a quibble than a disagreement, but classicly fascism is more about state control of (important) industry in support of the National Will than it is about enriching private business.
Yeah, I forgot a government that assassinates its own citizens without any charges or due process or that assists state governments with oppressing and brutalizing people exercising their First Amendment right to peaceful assembly could never be considered "fascist". Mussolini, Pinochet and Franco weren't half as bad as Hitler, but they were still fascists. Fascism, last I checked, meant government oppressing the populace while allowing industrialists to get richer...
I'm in no position to throw down a definition of fascism, but I agree with this.
The government oppressing the populace while allowing industrialists to get richer is just a hallmark of capitalist society whether the government is a dictatorship or a democratic republic. You know, imho.
Why doesn't buying multiple guns in a short period send up some sort of flag?Why should it?
It is estimated that there are over 250 million gun owners in the United States, and the yearly statistics for people getting shot (including suicides AND accidental shootings) does not even go into triple digits...
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Choosing not to do drugs and commit crimes would be a good start there. No "racist" government program makes anyone do either. Personal responsability beats all other...You know what would put us on par with European levels of crime and violence? Getting 14% of the population caught in a vicious cycle of gang violence and poverty out of it. You know, improving education and opportunity. Because the sad fact is, most of our crime stats are fueled by black on black crime in the poorest neighborhoods in America, not by random theater shootings. If you remove black on black crime from our crime statistics, we are right in the middle of the pack for Western European crime rates, across the board.
But that doesn't make good sensationalist TV, and involves actually DOING SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES EFFORT AND DEDICATION instead of armchair politicking. It would also require dropping the PC BS and tackling the issue head on. It is criminal how much we allow the cycle to persist, paying lip service and doing nothing of substance to correct the problem. Everyone wants more laws, but guess what? Any new laws would just impact that community harder than it does lily white America. Yeah, let's incarcerate more black people and destroy more black families, like our incredibly racist "War on Drugs" does. Yeah, that little experiment made life in the 'hood sooooo much better.
You know how New York City solved the crime problem in Manhattan? They forced the black people out and turned their neighborhoods into yuppie and hipster hell holes. That isn't a solution, that's sweeping the problem under the rug and not addressing the disservice we've done that community.
Get over yourselves, y'all are discussing the statistical equivalent of being hit by lightning while being bitten by a shark and ignoring the fact that, for white America, a lot of this crap is academic. More gun control isn't the answer to crime in this country, more education and opportunity for our most vulnerable citizens is.
Dude, look, I understand you probably have no psychological background, but problems like we have in our poorest neighborhoods are not that simple. It's like domestic violence. If you grew up with a dad who beat the crap out of your mom, you are vastly more likely to beat your spouse down the line. If you grew up in a community where not taking care of your kids is the norm, you're much less likely to take care of your kids.
Personal responsibility is, largely, a taught thing, not an inherent thing. And if there's no one to teach anyone HOW to be more responsible, the cycle continues.
Your attitude is a large part why the problem persists, I'm afraid.
|
Triple digits, eh?
See my post at the end of the last page for a correction of that miss-type of mine...
You know what would put us on par with European levels of crime and violence?
I agree with most of this.
More gun control isn't the answer to crime in this country, more education and opportunity for our most vulnerable citizens is.
[cough-cough-International-Proletarian-Socialist-Revolution-cough]
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know what would put us on par with European levels of crime and violence?I agree with most of this.
More gun control isn't the answer to crime in this country, more education and opportunity for our most vulnerable citizens is.[cough-cough-International-Proletarian-Socialist-Revolution-cough]
If someone had actually, I don't know, PUT THEIR DIRECTIONS IN THEIR POCKET OR SOMETHING WHEN IT WAS RAINING, they may have had a chance to *gurgle gurgle* and learn where my real political leanings are...
Triple digits, eh?See my post at the end of the last page for a correction of that miss-type of mine...
Yeah, I saw it after I posted. What scares me, though, is that you seem so flippantly OK with that number. I mean around 10,000 people, actual living breathing people, die from getting shot each year in the U.S. (yes, some are selfinflicted). I just don't understand how one can be so uncaring about these living breathing people dying because people are gung-ho about a 200-year-old outdated document.
More gun control isn't the answer to crime in this country, more education and opportunity for our most vulnerable citizens is.
What's wrong with looking at both sides of the coin? Why must it be only one and not the other?
|
|
Should my friends who are struggling with PTSD be allowed to have a firearm in their home?
If their therapist says no, probably not.
If "Some of them just need some help sleeping, and some of them might need in patient care, but who gets to decide?" the answer is the person they are receiving treatment from.
|
|
Gentle Giant, you're in Denmark, right? What are your gun control laws? And what's that semi-autonomous area in Copenhagen that has a drug dealing problem and had a shoot out not long ago with a bunch of drug criminals? Did your gun laws prevent the shoot out? Nope.
We have a much larger poverty problem than y'all do. THAT is our biggest problem, not private and legal gun ownership.
I just don't understand how one can be so uncaring about these living breathing people dying because people are gung-ho about a 200-year-old outdated document.
Its just human nature. One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.
Man, this is bullshiznit. I can't get my post on the Nazis into shape and I've got to go to work...
If someone had actually, I don't know, PUT THEIR DIRECTIONS IN THEIR POCKET OR SOMETHING WHEN IT WAS RAINING, they may have had a chance to *gurgle gurgle* and learn where my real political leanings are...
[bubble bubble bubble]
I have already forgotten whatever it is that you're talking about.
|
|
What scares me, though, is that you seem so flippantly OK with that number.
Jiminy Christmas!
Did you even bother to read the rest of my post??????
SO MANY MORE PEOPLE DIE PER YEAR FROM OTHER THINGS than they do from guns...
It was a simple comparison between statistics, nothing more...
And yet all you managed to pull from my post is that I am somehow flippant about the number of people that die from guns...
Seriously??
Gentle Giant, you're in Denmark, right? What are your gun control laws? And what's that semi-autonomous area in Copenhagen that has a drug dealing problem and had a shoot out not long ago with a bunch of drug criminals? Did your gun laws prevent the shoot out? Nope.
We have a much larger poverty problem than y'all do. THAT is our biggest problem, not private and legal gun ownership.
I'm perfectly aware of the socio-economic reasons why many people live in poverty and resort to crime.
That's why I also said that this is where a lot of good could come of putting focus on that aspect of society (by agreeing with what you wrote).However, if you also limit the number (and types) of weapons in circulation, then you most likely also reduce the number of crimes done with said weapons.
As for our gun laws? You have to take a hunting certificate to be allowed the use of hunting weapons. You have to take a hunting course and a weapons course and then pass a test. The hunting certificate has to be renewed each year. If you don't renew it, your riffle license is revoked, but you're allowed to keep shotguns and bows locked up (although you can't use them) - you have to get rid of the ammo, though, if you don't renew the license.
You can get a license to collect other types of guns (fairly hard), but generally not the ammo.
All of this requires a clean criminal record, of course.
Christania, the, now self-owned, part of Copenhagen which is known for its sale of weed (generally not harder drugs) isn't known for weapon problems and shoot outs. Yes, we've had some "mild" shoot outs (compared to the U.S. and countries like Central- and South America), they've been between gangs over the drug market (biker gangs, like Hell's Angels, vs. immigrant gangs). These shoot outs have been with hand guns. Rarely are other weapons found in police raids, most are sawn-off shotguns and hand guns.
I don't think anyone has argued that tougher gun laws would result in no shootings at all. That's silly. What people have been arguing for is that certain types of weapons might not be as widespread among criminals/gangs and those who otherwise use them to kill people. Guns like semi-automatic riffles with 100 shot clips.
Going to answer these two posts together:
I think it's a little harsh to say that someone who has a different opinion of gun control doesn't care about people getting murdered. But, dehumanizing a debate opponent is an old standby, I guess.
What scares me, though, is that you seem so flippantly OK with that number.Jiminy Christmas!
Did you even bother to read the rest of my post??????
SO MANY MORE PEOPLE DIE PER YEAR FROM OTHER THINGS than they do from guns...
It was a simple comparison between statistics, nothing more...
And yet all you managed to pull from my post is that I am somehow flippant about the number of people that die from guns...
Seriously??
It's not about dehumanizing "the opponent."
Digitalelf wrote this, which is what I'm reacting to:I'm sorry, I miss-typed...
I meant to say "does not even go into 6 digits" (and that is a yearly figure)...
To me that sounds as if you're saying that 6 digits is a really small number, not even worth getting worked up about, since so many people die from all kinds of other stuff.
That's like saying that people will die from other sources, so why bother try to reduce one of the "smaller" sources?Well, if even a fraction of those "not even... 6 digits" deaths could be prevented, isn't that a worthwhile goal?
And if you aren't flippant about the number of people who die from guns, then wouldn't you want to help the number go down?
Like restricting certain types of guns? If they aren't available to the "general public" they might just be harder to get illegally too (since many illegal guns are bought from gun shows and transferred illegally across state borders or stolen from private homes).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plus you might avoid people like this guy... ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What scares me, though, is that you seem so flippantly OK with that number.Jiminy Christmas!
Did you even bother to read the rest of my post??????
SO MANY MORE PEOPLE DIE PER YEAR FROM OTHER THINGS than they do from guns...
More people die from car crashes than from AIDS each year in the US
(no idea if this is true, but hypothetically)Therefore we should do nothing to fight AIDS.
Do you see the disconnect?
Is there a right number of people that will get you to consider gun control laws? What about 250k/year? 1 million?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know what would put us on par with European levels of crime and violence? Getting 14% of the population caught in a vicious cycle of gang violence and poverty out of it. You know, improving education and opportunity. Because the sad fact is, most of our crime stats are fueled by black on black crime in the poorest neighborhoods in America, not by random theater shootings. If you remove black on black crime from our crime statistics, we are right in the middle of the pack for Western European crime rates, across the board.
But that doesn't make good sensationalist TV, and involves actually DOING SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES EFFORT AND DEDICATION instead of armchair politicking. It would also require dropping the PC BS and tackling the issue head on. It is criminal how much we allow the cycle to persist, paying lip service and doing nothing of substance to correct the problem. Everyone wants more laws, but guess what? Any new laws would just impact that community harder than it does lily white America. Yeah, let's incarcerate more black people and destroy more black families, like our incredibly racist "War on Drugs" does. Yeah, that little experiment made life in the 'hood sooooo much better.
You know how New York City solved the crime problem in Manhattan? They forced the black people out and turned their neighborhoods into yuppie and hipster hell holes. That isn't a solution, that's sweeping the problem under the rug and not addressing the disservice we've done that community.
Get over yourselves, y'all are discussing the statistical equivalent of being hit by lightning while being bitten by a shark and ignoring the fact that, for white America, a lot of this crap is academic. More gun control isn't the answer to crime in this country, more education and opportunity for our most vulnerable citizens is.
I'm about 90% on board here.
The problem is, as we've seen, the personal responsibility folks who are stridently pro-gun also refuse to accept that, sometimes, situations beyond one's control shape their attitudes, behaviors, and worldviews.I don't disagree that there's a strong sociological inquiry lying behind a significant portion of gun violence in the US. Can there be no compromise? Can this be an issue we tackle from multiple angles?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think his point was that gun violence isn't as big an issue as the press makes it. Even including the crime stats for our poorest people, our rate of violence isn't that much higher than Europe's (we're talking about a couple of percentage points in a much more diverse culture than most European nations have). Basically, it's making a mountain out of a molehill, which is a trademark of political posturing pretty much globally.
My ultimate point is that focusing on this incident is a) racist as f~$$ - i.e. apparently we only care when it's white people being killed unless the press can make a big story out of it, and b) ignoring the actual problems we have that affect a much larger part of the population, which is also racist.
We've had 1018 black Americans murdered since Treyvan Martin, yet the press ignores all of that. Hell, the POLICE in this country have killed more innocent people (mostly black) this year than the psycho in Aurora, but our press doesn't want to talk about that. Maybe we should disarm the cops, apparently they aren't responsible enough to carry firearms, in spite of receiving far more training than your average conceal carry permit owner.
This is all smoke and noise that sells ad time on news stations. We don't care about the real problems, we just sit back and allow the press to scare us and allow the politicians to use this to further erode our rights.
|
|
You know what would put us on par with European levels of crime and violence? Getting 14% of the population caught in a vicious cycle of gang violence and poverty out of it. You know, improving education and opportunity. Because the sad fact is, most of our crime stats are fueled by black on black crime in the poorest neighborhoods in America, not by random theater shootings. If you remove black on black crime from our crime statistics, we are right in the middle of the pack for Western European crime rates, across the board.
But that doesn't make good sensationalist TV, and involves actually DOING SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES EFFORT AND DEDICATION instead of armchair politicking. It would also require dropping the PC BS and tackling the issue head on. It is criminal how much we allow the cycle to persist, paying lip service and doing nothing of substance to correct the problem. Everyone wants more laws, but guess what? Any new laws would just impact that community harder than it does lily white America. Yeah, let's incarcerate more black people and destroy more black families, like our incredibly racist "War on Drugs" does. Yeah, that little experiment made life in the 'hood sooooo much better.
You know how New York City solved the crime problem in Manhattan? They forced the black people out and turned their neighborhoods into yuppie and hipster hell holes. That isn't a solution, that's sweeping the problem under the rug and not addressing the disservice we've done that community.
Get over yourselves, y'all are discussing the statistical equivalent of being hit by lightning while being bitten by a shark and ignoring the fact that, for white America, a lot of this crap is academic. More gun control isn't the answer to crime in this country, more education and opportunity for our most vulnerable citizens is.
I'm about 90% on board here.
The problem is, as we've seen, the personal responsibility folks who are stridently pro-gun also refuse to accept that, sometimes,...
I actually have no problem with adopting the Swiss model. All of their weapons are registered, but, everyone pretty much has them and they're trained through government programs. Also, a lot of their privately owned weapons are what idiots here would call "assault weapons".
I'm not against a sensible approach to gun ownership and registration, I just don't trust our government to be sensible about much of anything.
|
|
Gentle Giant, you're in Denmark, right? What are your gun control laws? And what's that semi-autonomous area in Copenhagen that has a drug dealing problem and had a shoot out not long ago with a bunch of drug criminals? Did your gun laws prevent the shoot out? Nope.
We have a much larger poverty problem than y'all do. THAT is our biggest problem, not private and legal gun ownership.
I'm perfectly aware of the socio-economic reasons why many people live in poverty and resort to crime.
That's why I also said that this is where a lot of good could come of putting focus on that aspect of society (by agreeing with what you wrote).
However, if you also limit the number (and types) of weapons in circulation, then you most likely also reduce the number of crimes done with said weapons.As for our gun laws? You have to take a hunting certificate to be allowed the use of hunting weapons. You have to take a hunting course and a weapons course and then pass a test. The hunting certificate has to be renewed each year. If you don't renew it, your riffle license is revoked, but you're allowed to keep shotguns and bows locked up (although you can't use them) - you have to get rid of the ammo, though, if you don't renew the license.
You can get a license to collect other types of guns (fairly hard), but generally not the ammo.
All of this requires a clean criminal record, of course.Christania, the, now self-owned, part of Copenhagen which is known for its sale of weed (generally not harder drugs) isn't known for weapon problems and shoot outs. Yes, we've had some "mild" shoot outs (compared to the U.S. and countries like Central- and South America), they've been between gangs over the drug market (biker gangs, like Hell's Angels, vs. immigrant gangs). These shoot outs have been with hand guns. Rarely are other weapons found in police raids, most are sawn-off shotguns and hand guns.
I don't think anyone has argued that tougher gun laws would result in no shootings at all. That's...
I will point out that you seem to view handguns as not much of a problem. On this side of the pond, a lot of people on the severe gun control side of the issue see handguns as a much bigger problem than even "assault" weapons (quotes because people apparently have no idea what an assault weapon is).
It's weird, HD, that we come to largely the same conclusion but for completely different reasons.
I actually don't know that the victims of Friday's incident were white, black, or purple. I haven't seen any photos of the victims. The only two eyewitness interviews I've seen have been black people, so I assume there were SOME in the theater.
This is largely unrelated but I don't want to post two things. Another anecdote:
Friend of mine. Has a bunch of guns. Now that Wisconsin allows concealed carry, he's usually packing (or, as when asked, he replies "that's the beauty of concealed carry, you don't know). He is, in fact, a convicted felon. And yes, he has those guns legally.
He was arrested for grand theft, has admitted to stealing cars before, but this was for basically breaking into peoples homes, stealing electronics, and hawking it. He wasn't caught in the act, the police just tracked him down. He was charged with a felony, and plead guilty. He did like 18 months in county jail, plus some probation, but had his record retroactively changed to theft under a thousand or something so it's not a felony. So now he has guns.
He was able to have his record changed because he didn't use a weapon in committing these crimes. Well, he did, but no one was ever there, no one was able to disagree with his word, and there was literally no evidence presented because he plead guilty.
I think that's goofy.
|
|
you're saying that 6 digits is a really small number, not even worth getting worked up about, since so many people die from all kinds of other stuff.
What I'm saying is that 250 MILLION gun owners is a much greater number. What I'm saying is that the amount of people dying from gun violence is much smaller than the number of gun owners (which tells me that the laws ALREADY in place are in fact working). What I'm saying is that death from things other than guns is a much larger number, yet for some unknown reason those numbers seem to pale in comparison to the dreaded gun (and most of these other thing have deterrent laws as well, and people seem to think those laws are enough)...
Is there a right number of people that will get you to consider gun control laws? What about 250k/year? 1 million?
Are those the numbers that will get you to consider drunk driving laws?
Why, despite the amount of people dying as a result of drunk driving are the laws already in place enough for this?
Why aren't the laws already in place not enough for guns??
I mean, you break most gun laws once, you to federal prison. You have to get caught drunk driving 3 times in most states in order for that to happen...
See the disconnect?
More insane laws that affect nobody except the law abiding citizen because of a few fringe whackos who will disregard the law anyway is not the answer...
I mean, you break most gun laws once, you to federal prison. You have to get caught drunk driving 3 times in most states in order for that to happen...
See the disconnect?
More insane laws that affect nobody except the law abiding citizen because of a few fringe whackos who will disregard the law anyway is not the answer...
You're comparing apples to oranges.
The first time you KILL SOMEONE while driving a car, in all likelihood, you're doing serious jail time. There's your equivalence to gun violence.However, if you drive drunk it sends up a red flag that you may, one day, accidentally kill someone while driving. So they curtail your rights right then.
Why isn't there a similar system of red flags for gun ownership?
For example, if you had repeatedly sent death threats to people, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to buy or use guns until you get some counselling and a shrink signs off on it.
I just don't understand how one can be so uncaring about these living breathing people dying because people are gung-ho about a 200-year-old outdated document.
It's not that we don't care, it's that we don't think the solutions proposed to end gun violence make much sense. For the sake of argumant, suppose that the government took away all the guns, employing draconian measures that even prevented criminals from getting or using them. Most violent crimes are committed by males between the ages of 16 and 25. Many of these guys don't need a weapon to be a threat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For example, if you had repeatedly sent death threats to people, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to buy or use guns until you get some counselling and a shrink signs off on it.Sending death threats is a felony. In most places, felons can't buy guns.
Convicted felons, yes.
There are remarkably few prosecutions for death threats in the age of email and internet messageboards.
Convicted felons, yes.
There are remarkably few prosecutions for death threats in the age of email and internet messageboards.Because it's difficult to track and often crosses state (or national) lines.
The point is that we already have a system for keeping people who make death threats from buying guns. That it isn't very good is more a consequence of the difficulty of acting on death threats, rather than a lack of will.
OK then, bad example.
I'm sure you can imagine a situation in which someone exhibits as being violent, aggressive, and emotionally unstable without actually being convicted of any crimes, or even breaking laws that would lead to felony charges.I'm sure, given your post history, that you'd argue for more comprehensive (dare I say universal) health --including mental health-- treatment and coverage in this country.
Given that universal health coverage (or even mandating that all insurance plans PROVIDE mental health coverage) is politically infeasible, and that sane gun control is equally infeasible beyond what is already in place... how do you propose a solution to this dilemma?
If we, as a society, are willing to say "hey, losing 10k people a year to gun violence is worth it to us for the rest of us to have guns" then I'm honestly fine with it. I just want a discussion where people admit they're okay with that choice. There is always an exchange or level of balance between safety and liberty, and this issue is no different.
I think, as I think I highlighted early, the people who are anti gun-control, who you can't sway on that topic, are kinda the same people who are cockblocking us on any progress in the mental health area. In fact, those people are very likely to take the very idea of you debating the "allocation of resources" as dangerous doublespeak for fascism.
There's immense cultural pushback against the diagnosing of everything as a condition. There's a huge part of me that totally gets that: some people are just evil pricks and need to be locked up (opinions vary widely on what portion of criminals are in that category, but regardless) and I think it's an attractive argument. Until you run up against one that affects you personally.
I got told that lactose intolerance was just some made up thing. I mean, big surprise to me, I must have been imagining all those diarrhea attacks.
TL;DR- Nuanced reason and empirical data, let alone moral arguments, are unlikely to sway those you want to sway on either issue.
|
|
Why isn't there a similar system of red flags for gun ownership?
When someone looses their right to posses a firearm, then if that person wants one, he must go through illicit means to acquire it, whether he has to steal it, have it stolen, make a straw-man purchase because that person can no longer just walk in to a gun store and buy a firearm...
However, it doesn't matter because no matter how easy or difficult it may be for a person who lost the right to posses a firearm, acquiring one for that person is nowhere as easy for as it is for someone who's driver's license has been revoked...
When someone loses their privilege to drive (through whatever means), all that person has to do is get behind the wheel of an automobile and drive it...
But...
"if you drive drunk it sends up a red flag that you may, one day, accidentally kill someone while driving. So they curtail your rights right then."
Why aren't you then, up in arms by how easy it is for an unlicensed person to drive despite that person's rights being curtailed??
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Require a Breathalyzer be installed in all new cars. Yeah they are easy to get around (get someone else to breathe in it), still from what I've seen of drunk people I think the ones I'm really worried about wouldn't find a way to get it started.
|
|
It's almost as if you're comparing things that aren't at all alike!
Tell that to the person killed, or better yet, tell that person's family that we cannot make it harder because the consequences of restricting them are much greater...
Death by car, death by gun... Dead is dead...
I'm just trying to get people to see that perhaps, just perhaps, the laws set in place for things only work so far, and that setting more laws does nothing but harm and restrict the rights and privileges of the people who abide by the law even further, and all because there is a very small minority of wing-nuts that cannot play well with the rest of us...
And this minority of wing-nuts do not care about the law, so the majority is made to suffer...
I though Chicago alone has had over 600 homicides already? But that's mostly black on black crime, the media only cares about a bunch of white people getting shot, apparently, unless they can make a huge media circus around it (the Martin case).
What happened in Aurora was a slaughter.
Some parts of Chicago are like Gaza or Michoacan. The only way to clean up the violence is by stomping on civil rights to put an end to the gangs and their supporters. They should be treated like domestic terrorists.