Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 184. (Read 450551 times)

Generally the way these laws work is that there are federal statutes that are then set into state law (same with illegal drugs, more about this later) but the states can have more restrictive laws or in some cases, more lenient ones.

For example, in Texas it is NOT illegal for felons to own guns.  This is a curious historical thing, dates back to where there were legitimate needs for guns to protect against Indians. 

Then when the state makes more restrictive law, they can be fought as against the second amendment.

Different than drug laws - Federal government is selectively taking a back seat to state decisions in the direction of more lenient.

Basically, looks pretty lawless to me.  Now who exactly was saying we were going to fix a problem with more laws?

ROFL...

I am taking my response to this thread, as the poster is off topic where originally posted because he knows better than to post it in a related thread where his arguments will be decimated.

-Gun suicides:

So is this a gun problem, or a mental health problem? Do you really think if some one wants to die they need a gun to do it? Say we disarm everyone but the police and military... ever heard of suicide by cop? There are still plenty of buildings to jump off of, buses to jump in front of, and drugs to OD on without guns in the picture.

-Over-availability:

Do you really think making laws restricting the legal ownership of guns will make criminals stop using them? Illegal weapons are available all over the planet, ESPECIALLY in countries where guns are banned. Banning drugs worked so well, I am sure it will work just as well for guns! Illegal drugs certainly aren't available everywhere are they?

-Decreased availability causes decreased mortality:

Decreased mortality for whom? Criminals and crazy people? Even if your little utopian idea of banning guns some how magically making them less available worked, literally the only people you have disarmed are those that obey the law. Then you can watch the crime rate go up again along with the mortality and the over all violent crime rates.

-Historical reasons for guns as laid out in the US' constitution, such as defending yourself against government tyranny, lost Conquistadores, or POHMs setting out to bring the US back under British rule, are laughable today:

I don't know what country you are from, but I am fairly confident it is not the USA. I am not sure where you get off making those choices for a country you do not even live in, and pretending you understand our culture intimately from the outside.
Defending ourselves from government tyranny is the NUMBER ONE REASON people are buying guns over the past 10 years. Just watch any time Obama makes some comment about gun control everyone buys a shitload of guns in preparation for the tyranny which is very clearly rooted in the US government. This is the furthest thing from a joke as it has been since the civil war. Of course if you are safely within the borders of another nation, it is still a joke to you.

-The consumer fire-arms industry (which is what you're really talking about, and has nothing to do with weapons that could realistically hold off the government), is selling a fantasy so that "big boys" can also have their Barbie Doll accessories:

Hmm, I dunno about that. They seem to be doing a pretty good job holding off our modern military with small arms in Afghanistan. This argument is just a fallacy. Modern technology doesn't make you bullet proof. Additionally it is extremely difficult to occupy an armed nation for an extended period of time regardless of how many nukes, jets, tanks, drones, or bomb robots you have. Additionally the guns aren't just for the government, they are also to protect individuals from the insane mobs of hungry people that result from any economic collapse.

Classic. 
If i ever decide to let others do my thinking for me I'll get an iPhone.

IIRC that's already been part of the federal check for 20 years...

Activists Are Trying To Remove the Gun Emoji





Does the right to bear arms apply to emoji arms? It’s actually a somewhat serious question; activist nonprofit New Yorkers Against Gun Violence aims (excuse the pun) to disarm the iPhone by pressuring Apple’s CEO to remove the gun icon from its emoji catalog.

“The iPhone is ubiquitous. [Guns are] on the iPhone as an option,” the executive director of NYAGV, Leah Barrett, told Fast Company. “We thought this was a way to bring attention to the issue [of gun violence].”

The activists encourage people to tweet at Apple’s CEO and ask for the gun emoji to be removed, using the hashtag #DisarmTheiPhone. However, Fast Company cautions, “If a company like Apple removes words from that language, even if they’re technically pictures, isn’t it censorship? How far does this linguistic adjustment go? If we type the letters G-U-N should they be autocorrected to S-U-N, P-U-N, or F-U-N?” Well?


http://theweek.com/speedreads/569544/activists-are-trying-disarm-iphone-gun-emoji

I do think that there are some who should not have the right to weapons and should be filtered from the licensing process. I don't believe that the right to own weapons should be a afforded to people who have been guilty of a violent crime and I don't think that the mentally handicapped or emotionally disturbed

I would agree with you on this standard, except for the fact in some states, all it takes is the word of one family member or one police officer to have you committed involuntarily, and on their word alone. Even by this considerably more reasonable standard, we still come to the point where an individual is making decisions removing the rights of others.

An example of police using involuntary commitment as a weapon of coercion and harassment: http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/03/cop-threatens-to-have-man-involuntarily-committed-to-a-mental-hospital-for-recording-the-police/

Yeah, I'm starting to see the issues with mandatory evaluations, mostly that it would cost a fortune and not really be practical.  Seems like the best option is to use a law similar to NC is using, where you can't have one if you've been involuntarily hospitalized previously for being a danger to yourself/others

Again, I bring you back to the issue of effective enforcement and prevention of "mission creep" and abuse of these newly issued powers, which has still not been addressed. Also who makes the rules and draws the lines? Just like gun control in general, this is a really good idea that sounds great, but is missing the parts that show how it would implemented effectively and respectfully regarding people's rights. Additionally, even if they did do it correctly, why would crazy people care about following the law when murder is already illegal? Do you really believe they would not be able to find an illegal weapon if they so desired? It is safer to err on the side of caution and make sure the maximal number of law abiding citizens are armed so as to be able to respond most effectively when crazies do get a hold of firearms. Gun control is treating the symptom of gun violence, not the source. The source is not guns themselves, but the increasingly poor mental health of the American populace. Gun control is like giving cough medicine to some one with lung cancer. It may provide temporary and superficial relief, but the source of the destructive element still remains unhindered, allowed to fester untreated.

As far as your suggestion of subsidizing firearms training, that was not my suggestion at all, but your own idea. I am opposed to the idea in whole because as I stated, it provides yet another barrier of entry for the most at risk elements of society, those that live in poverty and crime stricken areas. If I had to design a system of mandatory firearms training, I would model it after the Swiss system of a short period of mandatory civil service under which every citizen is trained with firearms and prepared as a civil defense force, along with mandatory firearm ownership in every household. Every indication shows this is the most effective model relating to gun ownership, and this would be the only circumstances under which I would support mandatory firearms training for general ownership. Again, I think training is a very good idea, but the question is not if it is a good idea, but how do you do so without putting those at most risk in harms way even more so?


Step 1: Collect Underpants
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Profit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5sxLapAts

Fact Check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

USA != Americas.

The lean on the Americas figure is not due to the USA but rather Mexico, Brazil and Greenland.  All of which have substantially higher murder rates than the USA....

What?

No load fire aim?

Right, now look at the list of plausible exclusions from the procedures WERE THE GUNCONTROLFREEKS ever to get control of guns -

List of negatives for gun ownership -

1. 
2.
3.....1091 blalbhalblah
1092 too many right answers to questions
1093 between ages of 18-45, prime time for Muslim terrorism but we can't discriminate on religion, just ban them all
1-17 too young and immature
45+  Senile (also possibility of ex military here, those guys are dangerous)

My opinion of gun control is that it is best to relax your muscles, look past the sights at your target, and fire on the exhale with a steady trigger pull. 

 

Haha nailed it.  The ironic part is that now I work a clinical mental health position for a government agency.  You know what they don't administer to mental health clinicians where I work?  Psych evals and tox screens.

For gun control questions please add...

Have you ever thought your government was bad?
Have you ever thought some laws didn't matter?
Have you ever wanted to barbecue penquins or polar bears?

And for the proguncontrol freaks, here is the question you would like to ask-

Have you ever owned or handled a gun?

(If yes, clearly they should not be allowed to have a gun....)

(If no, they are inexperienced and would be dangerous if allowed to have one....)

When I was in college I was applying for random part-time jobs.  I applied once to Blockbuster and got red-flagged as high risk for hire lol.  If what you're talking about was anything like the Blockbuster survey, we're in trouble.  Among the questions asked were: Have you ever been in trouble?  Have you ever lied?  Have you ever been late?  What the hell am I supposed to do with those?

And homosexuals and nymphomanics WERE INCARCERATED INVOLUNTARILY.  FYI...

It's not a matter of any mental illness, it's whether said mental illness reasonably poses a danger to any other people.  Same standard we use for involuntary hospitalization, but maybe take out the 'to yourself' part.

Perhaps not.  You might remember the stories not long ago the technological capabilities of 'reading minds' to the extent that a visual images of a face (albeit not very 'high resolution') could be pulled out of a person's thoughts.  It seems far-fetched on one hand, but with sensitive enough readings and enough data processing power, it does seem technically feasible...and the news stories on it were at least passed off as being accurate.  I could see it being much more easy to combine less complex methods with a few targeted questions or images being able to understand an individual's mind quickly and cost effectively.  Probably you could do it without much more complexity than running a TSA security line.

In my recent interest in vaccination technology, it does seem to me that there is a very strong interest in doing at least one shot (here in the U.S.) either In Utero (pregnant women are now implored to take flu vaccines) or right at birth via the Hep-B shot.  Hep-B is a threat to those who engage in unsafe sexual practice or inter-venous drug use neither practice is widespread among newborns.  This observation is interesting enough for me to form some hypothesis.  One of these is that by infusing certain metals into the brain at an early stage of development one can make certain technology more effective.