|
Now that we can say with confidence that Holmes, Loughner and Cho were all flagged by professionals as being dangerous, and given the shooting at a Sikh by a known Neo-Nazi with criminal history, can we maybe work on getting the database to be updated and useful across state lines.
Holmes doctor literally went to police to warn them, risking her license, because she thought he was that dangerous 6 weeks before the shooting.
Before he bought some of the guns. So if we had a useful database we could have flagged him and alerted police that someone who was dangerously unstable according to a doctor was buying a gun.
Seriously. We can't agree to this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
/Agreed.
|
|
Ooh. I'd missed that. That definitely ups the ante.
Holmes doctor literally went to police to warn them, risking her license, because she thought he was that dangerous 6 weeks before the shooting.
Just came out today I think. I'll use Fox so no one from the right can say anything about the media.
I'll use Fox so no one from the right can say anything about the media..
In Canada to own a hand gun you have to go through some pretty extensive courses on safety and have to have doctors, and even ex-spouses, sign off that you're stable.
So in Canada, if you ever want to own a hand gun, do not divorce someone on bad terms, as they can stop you from owning a gun.
I think the US could learn a lot from Canadian gun control.
Around here in Chile, the laws for gun purchase are so strict that it's easier and quicker to just learn karate.
In any case, I think you have a very good idea going on. If people can be prohibited from driving under certain problematic physical conditions, it is only reasonable that guns can be prohibited under mental ones.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think mental health professionals should be able to flag anyone unless they can correctly spell the word "psychiatric."
+1. No one complains that you need a psych evaluation before you are issued a badge and service weapon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, and you're demonstrating exactly why we can't do that.
"a known Neo-Nazi with criminal history"
Do you have anything for a "Criminal history" other than drunk driving? CNN not that long ago said there was nothing in his record that would have kept him from legally buying the gun.
You don' want him to have a gun because he's a racist nazi. While that's more than understandable, giving a segment of the population the power to declare people they disagree with crazy and take away their rights has never gone well. Its blatantly unconstitutional.
By all means, ban pistols (or treat them the way we do machine guns) but you can't just outsource a constitutional violation to a non governmental segment of the population with a degree and think that somehow makes it ok.
Seriously. We can't agree to this?
.
I'm going to form a group of "Psychiatric Professionals" and we are going
to limit the gun ownership of *you* and your family.
Seriously, you certainly do not need guns anyways. Just do what you are
told, and get back to work.
.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's be honest here, a gun isn't going to protect anyone from tyranny.
That argument lost all meaning when governments started using tanks and Apache gunships.
We have a laser that can scan you at the molecular level, and drones.
If the US government wanted to become tyrannical, it would be a dictatorship tomorrow and no one could do anything to stop it.
They can fly a plane over the city, scan for any trace of gunpowder, and then drone those locations.
All of this being done by some dude in an air conditioned office in Nevada playing what is effectively a video game.
The only combat against tyranny is that sack of fat and electricity hanging out between your ears. It's the most powerful weapon ever built.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think forced sterilization for all manner of offenses from low IQ to intolerant beliefs is a great idea. The catch: only I get to decide who keeps their huevos.
EDIT: I actually think the OP's proposition is a fine idea. I also think that a knee-jerk opposition to it on grounds of personal liberty isn't completely insane. I sometimes wonder if I'm the only guy who thinks that we'll never stop all bad things, but that some restrictions are also good.
... I sometimes wonder if I'm the only guy who thinks that we'll never stop all bad things, but that some restrictions are also good.
.
No we won't stop all the bad things.
I was watching a History Channel TV show this morning about the new
*Dark Ages* that will begin around 2100, titled "Earth 2100".
Top U.S. Army, intelligence, and policymakers who have modeled a
scenario of the next century say that if we continue on this trajectory,
over the next hundred years the "perfect storm" of population growth,
resource depletion, climate change, terrorism and disease will converge
in an unstable world with catastrophic results. What lessons of the past
must we heed to survive?
.
Forced, reversible sterilization isn't necessarily a bad idea Lincoln.
Make breeding licensed, make the licensed based on as close to an objective set of criteria as possible, such as IQ, financial stability, personal education level etc. Avoid rulings based on ideology/religion etc.
Kind of prove you can raise a kid before you're allowed to have one.
Not to mention this allows us better control over the human genome so that we can fix it without the possibility of unsanctioned breeding ruining things.
We could finally wipe stuff like MS, CP, etc out of our genes without having to kill anyone.
And we could create a human race devoid of the mental components of crime and violence.
Imagine a human race with a genetic aversion to greed or want of material objects. With an internal revulsion to violence.
Then we won't need gun control as no one would want a gun.
Obviously this leaves us a little open for attack if some alien species were bumbling through the universe, so we could keep a genetic profile on hand of the opposite.
Genetically engineered humanist soldiers.
Most of the world's problems can be fixed by simply fixing the humans in the world, not trying to control the tools they use to commit harm.
EDIT: I actually think the OP's proposition is a fine idea. I also think that a knee-jerk opposition to it on grounds of personal liberty isn't completely insane. I sometimes wonder if I'm the only guy who thinks that we'll never stop all bad things, but that some restrictions are also good.
I have to wonder why my position is knee jerk but an obvious reaction to a tragedy is not. I've advocated more or less banning pistols before, so I'm not exactly the NRA poster boy here.
Forced, reversible sterilization isn't necessarily a bad idea Lincoln.
Make breeding licensed, make the licensed based on as close to an objective set of criteria as possible, such as IQ, financial stability, personal education level etc. Avoid rulings based on ideology/religion etc.
Kind of prove you can raise a kid before you're allowed to have one.
Not to mention this allows us better control over the human genome so that we can fix it without the possibility of unsanctioned breeding ruining things.
We could finally wipe stuff like MS, CP, etc out of our genes without having to kill anyone.
And we could create a human race devoid of the mental components of crime and violence.
Imagine a human race with a genetic aversion to greed or want of material objects. With an internal revulsion to violence.
Then we won't need gun control as no one would want a gun.
Obviously this leaves us a little open for attack if some alien species were bumbling through the universe, so we could keep a genetic profile on hand of the opposite.
Genetically engineered humanist soldiers.
Most of the world's problems can be fixed by simply fixing the humans in the world, not trying to control the tools they use to commit harm.
.
None of this is possible. And prolly never will be.
.
Forced, reversible sterilization isn't necessarily a bad idea Lincoln.
Make breeding licensed, make the licensed based on as close to an objective set of criteria as possible, such as IQ, financial stability, personal education level etc. Avoid rulings based on ideology/religion etc.
Kind of prove you can raise a kid before you're allowed to have one.
Not to mention this allows us better control over the human genome so that we can fix it without the possibility of unsanctioned breeding ruining things.
We could finally wipe stuff like MS, CP, etc out of our genes without having to kill anyone.
And we could create a human race devoid of the mental components of crime and violence.
Imagine a human race with a genetic aversion to greed or want of material objects. With an internal revulsion to violence.
Then we won't need gun control as no one would want a gun.
Obviously this leaves us a little open for attack if some alien species were bumbling through the universe, so we could keep a genetic profile on hand of the opposite.
Genetically engineered humanist soldiers.
Most of the world's problems can be fixed by simply fixing the humans in the world, not trying to control the tools they use to commit harm.
All very well if you're the one setting the criteria, which is exactly my point.
Fleshgrinder,
There's a gold dragon taking applications....
.
Maybe with all these new fangled 3D printers, we'll be able to print
our own guns.
Thus avoiding the dreaded "Psychiatric Professionals".
I'm thinking these "Psychiatric Professionals" are like Priests in
Warhammer 40k. But, maybe I play too many games.
"...the "Psychiatric Professionals" merely perform the duty of their
office. To further fear them is redundant, to hate them, heretical. Those
more sensible will place responsibility with them, and bow to them.
.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
stuff about human gengeenering
Are you serious? Or did I miss the irony markers? Honestly, all attempts and ideas to breed humans to certain specifications are an invitation to disaster, and open up a moral can of worms. Not to mention that "proving to be able to raise a child before having one" is just squaring the circle. Those ideas are only an inch away from racism as well. It sounds like the wet dream of a science fiction author to me.
stuff about human gengeenering... It sounds like the wet dream of a science fiction author to me.
.
I'm sure that is its genesis. Scifi is cool.
.
Here's an idea, if forced reversible sterilisation were possible and carried near-zero risk:
If a couple want to have a baby, both parents sign a thing and it's reversed. No questions asked. All they have to do is go to some place and put their names on a piece of paper. Or just a scribble if you can't write. This paper is discarded after the procedure is done. No need for records. The signature is merely a formality to ensure that people don't go into it unknowingly.
No more accidental pregnancies. No reproduction rights discrimination. No control, except for the requirement to consciously commit to having a baby.
If you're not bothered going to write your name on a piece of paper, you probably aren't cut out to be a parent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Go check out some of the TED talks on biology and the relatively new field of "genomics" and you guys would realize that my genetic engineering "fantasies" are a lot closer to reality than you think.
We're decoding the human genome at a very fast rate.
Did you know that every human who has ever climbed Everest and survived had the same rare gene? the A.C.E. gene. This gene appears to have a direct affect on a persons ability to deal with altitude sickness and low oxygen environments.
Every male power athletes who's ever won a medal in the Olympics who also had their genes tested also all shared ONE rare gene, which was something like the "R77" gene but I don't remember it exactly. Now this gene has yet to be decoded, we don't know exactly what it does, but EVERY medal winner who ever has been tested has that gene, and it's rare.
We are already a race of walking mutants who are evolving every day. I see no harm in guiding that evolution.
Why not give every human the ACE gene? Every human the R77 gene?
We have documents that say "All men are created equal" when science KNOWS this is not the case.
But it could be the case.
Mankind represents the "turning over of the keys" from the universe to us.
Let's take the wheel and give 'er.
The worry often isn't that we can't make a better human.
It is:
What happens to the rest of us?
The worry often isn't that we can't make a better human.
It is:
What happens to the rest of us?
The study of genomics has begun unlocking the ability to retroactively resequence the genes of already living people.
You see, certain viruses out there already rewrite our DNA. They do this in harmful ways to help them do their thing, but we're learning to harness the ability.
We could create viruses that could slowly modify our DNA over the course of gene therapies. Each DNA change could have to be slight, as bigger changes can lead the body to sort of freak out and die, but if we were slow and careful we shouldn't have much issue turning us living humans into the same superior versions that we breed anew.
Our knowledge of biological engineering is increasing at roughly the same rate as Moore's law.
We're doubling the technological ability and halving the cost every 18ish months.
Exponential growth is a beautiful thing.
@ original topic I think that at least in California the pysciatrists have that ability they just need to commit them to a mental hospital first and keep doing that.
... I sometimes wonder if I'm the only guy who thinks that we'll never stop all bad things, but that some restrictions are also good..
No we won't stop all the bad things.
I was watching a History Channel TV show this morning about the new
*Dark Ages* that will begin around 2100, titled "Earth 2100".Top U.S. Army, intelligence, and policymakers who have modeled a
scenario of the next century say that if we continue on this trajectory,
over the next hundred years the "perfect storm" of population growth,
resource depletion, climate change, terrorism and disease will converge
in an unstable world with catastrophic results. What lessons of the past
must we heed to survive?.
Interesting. I will have to check that out after I get home. Thanks for the link, GM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right, my bad for going so off track.
To drag it back to the OP, I think the issue is that we're trying to fight the symptom not the disease.
The USA is an excessive paranoid nation compared to others. They fear their governments, their doctors, their news, their celebrities, and even invent fake organizations to fear like the illuminati.
The USA is built on fear, originally kubernismophobia (the irrational fear of government) and over time this fear became fear of basically anything different.
What do scared people want? Weapons. Even when I'm scared, having a blunt object in my hand reduces said fear. Just holding a good knife makes you feel more powerful and, hence, less afraid.
So you can take guns out of the hands of the scared people, but they're still afraid.
You have to hit the fear. You have to show people the statistics. Show them that today is safer than yesterday.
We have to get people off "the news" as they feed the public the fear.
You look at US news, and the world looks like its on the brink of destruction.
You look at the statistics and you realize we're living in an age people of history would consider Utopian.
Fight the fear, end the violence.
|
Right, my bad for going so off track.
To drag it back to the OP, I think the issue is that we're trying to fight the symptom not the disease.
The USA is an excessive paranoid nation compared to others. They fear their governments, their doctors, their news, their celebrities, and even invent fake organizations to fear like the illuminati.
Invented, paranoid?? OK?
Invented, paranoid?? OK?Right, my bad for going so off track.
To drag it back to the OP, I think the issue is that we're trying to fight the symptom not the disease.
The USA is an excessive paranoid nation compared to others. They fear their governments, their doctors, their news, their celebrities, and even invent fake organizations to fear like the illuminati.
A bunch of rich d-bags hanging out being rich d-bags does not equal a secret society.
It's just natural human greed, not some elaborate plan.
It's a "headless" conspiracy. No plan, no one at the wheel, no grand scheme, just rich people trying to stay rich anyway they can.
The ultimate science troll to gun owners:
Invent a weapon that through sound, or laser, or radiation etc can activate or neutralize chemical propellants.
An antigun gun.
I'd go with activation over neutralization, then their gun is your weapon as you can make it explode in their hands.
Then work on making them area of effect and install them in street lights.
One button pulse that neutralized every firearm in the area.
This is the kind of stuff we could be working on instead of legal stuff.
It'd be totally Constitutional as well.
No part of the Constitution said you have the right to WORKING arms.
The ultimate science troll to gun owners:
Invent a weapon that through sound, or laser, or radiation etc can activate or neutralize chemical propellants.
An antigun gun.
I'd go with activation over neutralization, then their gun is your weapon as you can make it explode in their hands.
Then work on making them area of effect and install them in street lights.
One button pulse that neutralized every firearm in the area.
This is the kind of stuff we could be working on instead of legal stuff.
It'd be totally Constitutional as well.
No part of the Constitution said you have the right to WORKING arms.
That is twisting both the letter and the spirit of the Contitution. The Founding Fathers were right to not trust ANY form of government. Humans need a government, but that does not mean that it serves the people. Think that through for a few minutes. Then tell me how do you go about removing a corrupt government if the people in charge do not want to be removed. Remember, a government is run by PEOPLE. People can become corrupted by power and no amount of BS will ever change that.
Invented, paranoid?? OK?Right, my bad for going so off track.
To drag it back to the OP, I think the issue is that we're trying to fight the symptom not the disease.
The USA is an excessive paranoid nation compared to others. They fear their governments, their doctors, their news, their celebrities, and even invent fake organizations to fear like the illuminati.
A bunch of rich d-bags hanging out being rich d-bags does not equal a secret society.
It's just natural human greed, not some elaborate plan.
It's a "headless" conspiracy. No plan, no one at the wheel, no grand scheme, just rich people trying to stay rich anyway they can.
And if I were that rich and that corrupt, I would do my best to try to control the rulling body of whatever country I operated (and lived) in. The old saying about the golden rule. He who controls the gold, controls the rules.
If we all downloaded our consciousness into machinery and danced about the ether as clouds of nanobots, would we be people?
And then, if we formed a government of immortal nanobotmen, would that government be run by people?
And what would the Founding Fathers have to say about that?
Guns aren't going to remove a government.
How do you remove a corrupt government?
Ask Egypt.
Ask the handful of other Arab countries that protested their way to freedom. It's a long process, and many of them died for it, but they didn't need their own guns.
Remember, the US government has weapons so advanced that any gun you have would be laughable. It'd be like slingshots vs tanks.
They have air craft carriers with kill zones measured in hundreds of kilometres.
Guns are not protection from tyranny, they're more like a security blanket that makes you FEEL in control and safe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, Fleshgrinder, read some history. The more I learn of history, the more I relaize that NO ONE can be fully trusted with power. Even the best of intentions go astray.
Well, doctors votes can have the result that you are unfit to drive a car (at least over here), probably presenting a danger to yourself and others, and you are thus denied a licence. The same should go for guns as well. (It holds true for pilots as well, and is one reason why most companies using dangerous machinery have some sort of supervisor.) This does not catch all problems, of course, but quite some.
~shrugs~ Maybe Fleshgrinder, but the government sure as Hell fears those with guns. Why is that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, Fleshgrinder, read some history. The more I learn of history, the more I relaize that NO ONE can be fully trusted with power. Even the best of intentions go astray.
That assumes, of course, that good intentions were there at the start...
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
~shrugs~ Maybe Fleshgrinder, but the government sure as Hell fears those with guns. Why is that?
Perhaps because you never know if the gun owner uses his gun to kill some government employee?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, Fleshgrinder, read some history. The more I learn of history, the more I relaize that NO ONE can be fully trusted with power. Even the best of intentions go astray.
Before anyone perfected anything, people failed at it thousands of times.
That is never a good argument to not keep trying to perfect something.
And the perfection of human governance is more important than most things.
I'm actually what is commonly referred to as a "libertarian socialist", I don't believe we NEED government, but I believe we need certain things to be accomplished before we can naturally progress to a stateless society.
And we cannot progress to that society when people are still armed and afraid.
We need to progress to a world where it is truly 1 government by 1 people, all 7+ billion of us.
I'm not overly concerned what a bunch of rich land and slave owners wrote down about life and liberty a couple centuries ago. I live in 2012, and I'd like us to stop trying to adapt 200+ year old systems to 2012.
I'd like a 2012 system.
Also, Fleshgrinder, read some history. The more I learn of history, the more I relaize that NO ONE can be fully trusted with power. Even the best of intentions go astray.
Also, please read a newspaper.
Unless I missed something in the last couple of days, Egypt is still ruled by the same claque of military officers that have been in power since, oh, Nasser (not the exact same individuals, of course).
[Goes to look over the internet to see if I have missed something in the last couple of days.]
I never said these changes were fast, but Egypt is transitioning into a proper democratic government.
The military is wary, as they were afraid of a religious candidate taking power, but the Muslim brotherhood of 2012 is a lot different than the old terrorist organization that they sprang from.
Change is slow.
Even the American Revolution wasn't mind bogglingly different.
Before the revolution, a bunch of rich guys owned all the land and had to listen to the Queen.
After the revolution, the same rich guys owned all the same land, but now didn't have to listen to the queen.
Your average American saw very little difference except that their taxes now went to an American government instead of a British one.
Sometimes people wonder why the US is sort of an oligarchy controlled by rich land owners... well, it could be because the constitution was written by an oligarchy of rich land owners.
Not much has changed really.