|
long post cut for spaceNo 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 *
Pretty much, except it will have to go the supreme court since some states have written laws forbidding them to comply.
Which is stupid because we should want crazy people to not have guns.
I agree with the concept, but would have to see how the law was written and observed how it interacted with others laws before Id ever personally approve it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
And the only reason that he attracted an armed militia is because German people were poor, hungry, and jobless. Once again, fixing that would go much further toward ending gun violence than any ban.
(1) I wanted to point out that free speech does not and can not cause deaths.
(2) I can not imagine a scenario in which... freedom of speech result in people getting killed, unless... the free speaker incites violent riots.
Statement (2) contains an "unless" clause that contradicts the absolute nature of statement (1), thus leading to my confusion. If statement (2) was a mis-statement or I misunderstood it, apologies.
I think you are completely wrong about the "scared gun owners" who won't.
I'm a pessimist, but i don't think I'm one without cause. When Obama got elected people ran out to buy guns before they were taken. I will bet you that if he's re elected the same exact thing happens, despite an administration that's been nearly silent on the gun control issue.
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.
Anyone wants to sign up for a list that's fine. Timelifebooks, fiddle contest, or a don't let me buy guns pact by a consenting adult is fine by me.
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.
I think you lost me here.
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.
He worked in the neuroscience department and has glowing letters of recommendation citing his intellect and maturity. I don't think its likely he had anything immediately noticeably.
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 don't think you'd hit 1%. Very few people buy a gun for their suicide.
I think you are ignoring a lot of things that are inconvenient to your argument and emphasizing "concerns" that aren't.
To what end? Yeah, its very common if not downright ubiquitous to do that
Hand me the swivel chair and white cat. What's my motivation here? Whats my ultimate goal?
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.
If every American was required to buy and carry an epipen at all times, and the government wanted to search my house to make sure i took it with me I'd be annoyed.
I wouldn't mind repealing the 2nd amendment.Good luck assembling a 2/3 majority. While we're daydreaming, I wouldn't mind winning the lottery.
Which lottery?
Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
.
Is this a three-for-three deal, are can we at least choose two of them?
.
... I spent 28 of my 29 years of existence in apathy and despair, I prefer the new me.
.
Basically then, everything you say is highly biased. Good to know.
.
Guns do not cause death, irresponsible and evil people do. But you have no problem with speech, only those evil guns.
Well, trying to keep these "irresponsible and evil people" (however you define these) from getting guns as easily as now might be chance to reduce violent death, I´d think. Still, if people use their rights, be it to bear arms (in the US), freedom of speech, religious freedom or whatever rights you want, within the limits that are set to those rights, it should be no problem. If all those people legally owning guns never killed anybody with it, it would be no problem. But people abuse their rights. With free speech, or religious freedom, the damage might be negligible. With guns, is is probably lethal.
And yes, I think that the right to own a gun is questionable. It might have been warranted 200+ ago, but today? The world has changed a little since then, and the british army not going to attack the US anytime soon. But that is my personal opinion only.
EDIT: removed a contradiction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(1) I wanted to point out that free speech does not and can not cause deaths.(2) I can not imagine a scenario in which... freedom of speech result in people getting killed, unless... the free speaker incites violent riots.Statement (2) contains an "unless" clause that contradicts the absolute nature of statement (1), thus leading to my confusion. If statement (2) was a mis-statement or I misunderstood it, apologies.
Ok, I see I was less than clear there. I wanted to say that even an abuse of other rights (freedom of speech, religious freedom) does not cause direct deaths. Abusing the right to own a gun can be lethal. Even these fundamental rights have limits, and as long as you keep to these limits, everything should be fine. Perhaps my command of the english language reached its limits here.
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?You're pretty shaky on your early WWII history, there. Hitler rose to power on the back of a heavily-armed militia (the Sturmabteilung, literally "stormtroopers"), which he used to threaten his enemies as he advanced his political career, and roused passions with the threat of another heavily armed militia, German Communists (the KPD). In fact, the Reischstag fire was blamed on Communists (and may indeed have been set by them), and was the stated reason for the declaration of martial law and the dissolution of the Reichsstag, Germany's parliament.
It's not like the KPD didn't resist, even after that. They were one of the driving forces behind the German resistance, all throughout World War II. What do you think individual armed Jews could have done that a well-armed militia with support from Comintern couldn't?
There's this fantasy that individual people are going to somehow stop a repressive government, while ignoring all the times an extremist militia has overthrown a government and also ignoring all the times that an individual act of resistance ends up being a justification for even greater repression.
Thanks for setting this in the right light here.
Even if we go that hypothetical way and think that all those people killed would have had guns, it would have done them no good at all. At the time the holocaust was in full swing, the Wehrmacht had part in it. An untrained militia of perhaps 2 million (I´d assume that 1/3 were in an age where they could hope to wield a gun with success), civilians most of them, across all Europe against an army that was pretty much on top level at the start of the war? As AmiB pointed out, there were armed street fights between Nazis and Communists in the ´20ies and early thirties, so the Nazis had the advantage of being armed and well trained way before the holocaust began. (As an aside, from researching my family history, I know that a cousin of my paternal grandfather was shot by Nazis in early 1933 within a city, on the road. He died a few days later. He was an open member of the communist party. I don´t know yet if the murderer got punished, but I doubt it.) In that climate of fear and random murder, almost no one would have the guts to form a militia once the Nazis came to power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?stuffI´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.
I've been showing you plenty of statistics that show that gun deaths increase based on the higher presence of guns.
The homicide rate with guns is dependent on the normal crime rate of a community, but the suicide rate and accidental death rate also increase with guns.
I've also referenced the stats of how gun prevalence result in an INCREASED suicide rate.
I'm in favor of fewer people dying, for whatever reason. What are you in favor of?
16,000 people kill themselves with guns in this country every year. Do you have a verifiable statistic of how many peoples lives are saved by guns?
And not one was caused by a gun. it was the tool used. every single one was caused by irresponsibility or choice of a human.
Guns still are some of the most dangerous "tools" around, with their primary purpose to kill living things, be they injured or hostile animals or some humans - usage of said guns for sport still is a secondary purpose. What do you do to humans who can´t handle a tool in a responsible way, but rather injure or kill people with it? Taking away the tool should be the first response.
|
And not one was caused by a gun. it was the tool used. every single one was caused by irresponsibility or choice of a human.This is an excellent argument to allow people to sell poisonous food and medicine, addictive drugs, explosives, and chemical weapons. Obviously, anyone who isn't responsible (and anyone in their vicinity) doesn't deserve to live, and this will help weed them out.
So you are then arguing in favor of controlling what people eat, drink, smoke etc? Making illegal any device or substance deemed dangerous by the "experts"? Freedom can be messy, but i prefer it to a tyrant giving you a narrow list of what you are allowed, for your own safety of course.
|
|
And not one was caused by a gun. it was the tool used. every single one was caused by irresponsibility or choice of a human.Guns still are some of the most dangerous "tools" around, with their primary purpose to kill living things, be they injured or hostile animals or some humans - usage of said guns for sport still is a secondary purpose. What do you do to humans who can´t handle a tool in a responsible way, but rather injure or kill people with it? Taking away the tool should be the first response.
From the ones that miss use it, yes. That is exactly what law enforcement does. We do assume innocence first here though and not treat everyone like a criminal until they prove they are not
And not one was caused by a gun. it was the tool used. every single one was caused by irresponsibility or choice of a human.
Communities that own more guns have higher rates of suicide than communities that own fewer guns.
|
|
So you are then arguing in favor of controlling what people eat, drink, smoke etc? Making illegal any device or substance deemed dangerous by the "experts"? Freedom can be messy, but i prefer it to a tyrant giving you a narrow list of what you are allowed, for your own safety of course.Yes! We don't let people freely sell toxic food or explosives, and while the war on drugs is a horrible trainwreck, the idea of regulating medicines and intoxicants (for purity if nothing else) is still a good one.
Are you seriously suggesting that the Reinheitsgebot was tyrannical?
I never knew Andrew R felt so strongly about witbier!
So you would support the return of prohibition, making tobacco illegal, banning all "unhealthy" foods, banning vehicle deemed not safe enough (motor bikes, atv, jetskis)? How about "dangerous" entertainment, might not be good for mental health and all.
@aMiB: So you only recommend regulation to guarantee that firearms purchased are in proper functioning order and the same for munitions and keep them out of the hands of children as much as possible. I mean that is the strict comparison. Nothing you described was about behavior associated with those things you mentioned, merely on the quality that they were produced as.
|
|
@aMiB: So you only recommend regulation to guarantee that firearms purchased are in proper functioning order and the same for munitions and keep them out of the hands of children as much as possible. I mean that is the strict comparison. Nothing you described was about behavior associated with those things you mentioned, merely on the quality that they were produced as.
Silly facts and details, just has a problem with those evil guns of course.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you would support the return of prohibition, making tobacco illegal, banning all "unhealthy" foods, banning vehicle deemed not safe enough (motor bikes, atv, jetskis)? How about "dangerous" entertainment, might not be good for mental health and all.So you are then arguing in favor of controlling what people eat, drink, smoke etc? Making illegal any device or substance deemed dangerous by the "experts"? Freedom can be messy, but i prefer it to a tyrant giving you a narrow list of what you are allowed, for your own safety of course.Yes! We don't let people freely sell toxic food or explosives, and while the war on drugs is a horrible trainwreck, the idea of regulating medicines and intoxicants (for purity if nothing else) is still a good one.
Are you seriously suggesting that the Reinheitsgebot was tyrannical?
I never knew Andrew R felt so strongly about witbier!
Do people re-engineer these things to make them more effective at killing? If not, stop comparing them to guns.
|
|
Do people re-engineer these things to make them more effective at killing? If not, stop comparing them to guns.So you would support the return of prohibition, making tobacco illegal, banning all "unhealthy" foods, banning vehicle deemed not safe enough (motor bikes, atv, jetskis)? How about "dangerous" entertainment, might not be good for mental health and all.So you are then arguing in favor of controlling what people eat, drink, smoke etc? Making illegal any device or substance deemed dangerous by the "experts"? Freedom can be messy, but i prefer it to a tyrant giving you a narrow list of what you are allowed, for your own safety of course.Yes! We don't let people freely sell toxic food or explosives, and while the war on drugs is a horrible trainwreck, the idea of regulating medicines and intoxicants (for purity if nothing else) is still a good one.
Are you seriously suggesting that the Reinheitsgebot was tyrannical?
I never knew Andrew R felt so strongly about witbier!
So "accidentally" basically toxic things passed off as ok (yet intentionally addictive) for you are better than a device designed to protect yourself and get food?
|
|
Do people re-engineer these things to make them more effective at killing? If not, stop comparing them to guns.So you would support the return of prohibition, making tobacco illegal, banning all "unhealthy" foods, banning vehicle deemed not safe enough (motor bikes, atv, jetskis)? How about "dangerous" entertainment, might not be good for mental health and all.So you are then arguing in favor of controlling what people eat, drink, smoke etc? Making illegal any device or substance deemed dangerous by the "experts"? Freedom can be messy, but i prefer it to a tyrant giving you a narrow list of what you are allowed, for your own safety of course.Yes! We don't let people freely sell toxic food or explosives, and while the war on drugs is a horrible trainwreck, the idea of regulating medicines and intoxicants (for purity if nothing else) is still a good one.
Are you seriously suggesting that the Reinheitsgebot was tyrannical?
I never knew Andrew R felt so strongly about witbier!
Are guns re-engeneered to be a health risk so they can intentionally be made more addictive?
|
|
So "accidentally" basically toxic things passed off as ok (yet intentionally addictive) for you are better than a device designed to protect yourself and get food?On this point, Andrew R and I agree. While removing tobacco and guns from common use are both net positives, trying to implement that retroactively would lead to an obvious clusterf~&+. This is why I'm not hot on gun control for the US.
Yet tobacco will never protect you or put meat on the table. But few cry about it like gun control. seems odd to me
So "accidentally" basically toxic things passed off as ok (yet intentionally addictive) for you are better than a device designed to protect yourself and get food?
You protect yourself or get food by killing with a gun. A gun's only purpose is to kill.
|
|
So "accidentally" basically toxic things passed off as ok (yet intentionally addictive) for you are better than a device designed to protect yourself and get food?You protect yourself or get food by killing with a gun. A gun's only purpose is to kill.
You say that like its a bad thing. A match has only one use, to start a fire. that can mean arson or not freezing to death.
|
|
Also, arming yourself for self-defense making you more likely to get shot, basically nobody in the US hunts for subsistence, etc.
You really need to spend more time in rural america. You shoot wild animals or die, in some areas hunting provides far more meat than the store. Some of you have never seen that world and will never understand it.
You really need to spend more time in rural america. You shoot wild animals or die, in some areas hunting provides far more meat than the store. Some of you have never seen that world and will never understand it.
Also, arming yourself for self-defense making you more likely to get shot, basically nobody in the US hunts for subsistence, etc.
I have numerous friends and family back home (northeastern Kentucky, southeastern Kentucky, and western West Virginia) with small farms and nuisance permits. Their flat chest freezers are perennially filled with deer meat. They make deer jerky, and deer steaks, and deer chili. The meat from deer (not to mention squirrels) can greatly compliment the food available to a family, especially when economic times are tough. Fishing helps too.
There are still a good number of people in rural America who get a sizeable portion of their food grown by their own hands and killed with their own guns or caught with their own fishing equipment.
|
|
You really need to spend more time in rural america. You shoot wild animals or die, in some areas hunting provides far more meat than the store. Some of you have never seen that world and will never understand it.
Also, arming yourself for self-defense making you more likely to get shot, basically nobody in the US hunts for subsistence, etc.I have numerous friends and family back home (northeastern Kentucky, southeastern Kentucky, and western West Virginia) with small farms and nuisance permits. Their flat chest freezers are perennially filled with deer meat. They make deer jerky, and deer steaks, and deer chili. The meat from deer (not to mention squirrels) can greatly compliment the food available to a family, especially when economic times are tough. Fishing helps too.
There are still a good number of people in rural America who get a sizeable portion of their food grown by their own hands and killed with their own guns or caught with their own fishing equipment.
not only that but wild game is healthier.
You say that like its a bad thing. A match has only one use, to start a fire. that can mean arson or not freezing to death.So "accidentally" basically toxic things passed off as ok (yet intentionally addictive) for you are better than a device designed to protect yourself and get food?You protect yourself or get food by killing with a gun. A gun's only purpose is to kill.
No, you keep making comparisons to other things, which can be used for utilitarian purposes, that do not involve killing something. A gun's single and only purpose is to kill.
Your right, a match's purpose is to start a fire. Fire's have lots of uses, most of which do not involve killing anything.
And please remember, I am in favor of hunting weapons. I think people should be able to hunt, particularly if they feed themselves or others. So there's not complaint from me there.
But if you want to keep making comparison to other tools, which have a non-killing utilitarian purpose, I'm going to keep talking about how guns are only useful for killing and serve no other purpose.
The idea to ban everything remotely dangerous is obviously ridiculous - try banning tornadoes and earthquakes (or bees, if you want), if you think that idea through to the end.
It is one thing to have a choice if you want to use potentially dangerous stuff, like tobacco or liquor or unhealthy food - nobody forces you to smoke, drink or go to the burger joint. Nobody forces you to go snowboarding, jetskiing or what have you. But you have no choice if somebody wields a gun and kills you.
I´m in favor of controlling or banning everything that is only destructive, like drugs, poisons, explosives and guns. Please note that I say controlling or banning. I enjoy alcohol as well, but I´m happy that there are strict controls about its quality in place. I would hate losing my eyesight because of lax controls. Now, the more destructive something is, the tighter the controls need to be IMO. If something turns out to be only destructive, it should be banned with only tightly regulated exceptions (thinking of guns as well as explosives here).
Communities that own more guns have higher rates of suicide than communities that own fewer guns.
Higher rates of successful suicides or higher rates of attempted suicides or both?
|
|
You really need to spend more time in rural america. You shoot wild animals or die, in some areas hunting provides far more meat than the store. Some of you have never seen that world and will never understand it.If I had spent any more time in it, I would never have left it. Think a bit about my politics and the expression, "There is no zealot like the converted."
This is a dumb argument anyway, since you have no idea what subsistence hunting is (if you're hunting deer or squirrels, you're almost certainly not) and I don't think banning long guns is a very good idea in any event. (Also, squirrel is awful, that crap is stew meat.)
No way, squirrel is best fried with a light cornmeal breading. Rabbit is good in a stew.
Rabbit is good in a stew.
Rabbit is very good in lots of different ways. You should eat more of it and expand your culinary horizons. In the farm country in Upstate NY, rabbits are a specialty.
And now, an intermezzo.
Texas A&M Shooting. Another link.
|
|
And now, an intermezzo.
Texas A&M Shooting. Another link.
Looks like it was an eviction gone bad. Wouldn't have made the national news if it weren't near a campus so soon after the Sikh incident.
Another example of an off the radar incident, let's see how it plays out about the persons mental health history and the gun purchase.
|
|
And not one was caused by a gun. it was the tool used. every single one was caused by irresponsibility or choice of a human.Who wouldn't have been able to accomplish the goal of killing as effectively with a lesser tool.
Bull. Ask Bath MI about their little school incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disasterThe only gun involved was a hunting rifle used to detonate the bomb, and that would have been easily done without it.
|
|
Rabbit is good in a stew.Rabbit is very good in lots of different ways. You should eat more of it and expand your culinary horizons. In the farm country in Upstate NY, rabbits are a specialty.
I have been stuck in the city too long, i am making more of an effort to hunt this year. Stew isn't the only way to do rabbit, just my favorite