Mentally ill? Can't buy a gun? Use a machete.

[dogs4thewin]

Do you think it's really easy to commit mass vehicular manslaughter? Sure, you can run over a group of people in a crowded area, but then they'll just install barriers in areas where people congregate. Threat neutralized. Trying to kill people on sidewalks would be difficult considering cars parked along streets, trees, light polls, signs, waste baskets, etc. I don't think you really thought this through.

Good point. I was just thinking number of cars on the road.

 

[dogs4thewin]

My apologies, I thought you was just referring to gasoline/petrol not an entire branch of matter.

When i said gas I did not just mean for cars I meant anything from that to purposely say releasing CO2 within a crowded area like making it leak.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Really? Is this so hard to understand? There is a reason people use guns to kill others. There is a reason people choose to use guns over rocks or sticks. There is a reason we are not issuing bows and arrows to the military. If there was no reason for it then the whole idea that you need a gun to protect yourself would be a non issue. It is because guns are an extremely effective tool whole sole function is as a weapon.

Still if someone WANTS to commit a violent crime badly enough or wants a particular person dead badly enough there are PLENTY of ways to do it along with the black market for guns which like the black market for EVERYTHING else will NOT die.

 

[Belk]

You've presented a real brain teaser here. Just reading it gives me a headache.

Yes, that usually happens when attempt to come up with simplistic answers to complex issues.

 

[Belk]

Still if someone WANTS to commit a violent crime badly enough or wants a particular person dead badly enough there are PLENTY of ways to do it along with the black market for guns which like the black market for EVERYTHING else will NOT die.

OK. So what? Since it is impossible to stop murder 100% we should just give up? That makes no sense.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes, that usually happens when attempt to come up with simplistic answers to complex issues.

Not what I meant. Your question is structured in a confusing way.

 

[Belk]

Not what I meant. Your question is structured in a confusing way.

Very well, the fact that people can use other weapons besides guns is not an effective argument against gun control. Is that less confusing?

 

[Xalith]

OK. So what? Since it is impossible to stop murder 100% we should just give up? That makes no sense.

Reasonable gun control is OK, but if you take it too far, then you just make ordinary citizens defenseless against people who have black market weaponry.

Keeping guns away from people with rap sheets and mental illnesses is OK.
Keeping guns away from everybody is not OK.

I don't have a mental illness, and I've never committed a crime (well, ok, I had 1 speeding ticket). I don't want my guns taken away, my luck, a week later some criminal will try to break my door down and he's got a pistol he obtained through black market, and that shotgun I had a week ago might have been very useful in making him think twice about continuing that particular plan.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Very well, the fact that people can use other weapons besides guns is not an effective argument against gun control. Is that less confusing?

It is no clearer than your first question;

"So the whole idea that it is possible to kill other people with things besides guns is not a valid argument against gun control?"

I must have a brainblock of some sort but I still don't understand the question. Perhaps if you totally rephrase it.

 

[Belk]

Reasonable gun control is OK, but if you take it too far, then you just make ordinary citizens defenseless against people who have black market weaponry.

Keeping guns away from people with rap sheets and mental illnesses is OK.
Keeping guns away from everybody is not OK.

I don't have a mental illness, and I've never committed a crime (well, ok, I had 1 speeding ticket). I don't want my guns taken away, my luck, a week later some criminal will try to break my door down and he's got a pistol he obtained through black market, and that shotgun I had a week ago might have been very useful in making him think twice about continuing that particular plan.

I agree. However whenever people start to talk about gun control it is immediately labeled as "They are trying to take our weapons!" How can we have a reasonable conversation about gun control if the second it is brought up it is presumed to be over reach?

 

[Belk]

It is no clearer than your first question;

"So the whole idea that it is possible to kill other people with things besides guns is not a valid argument against gun control?"

I must have a brainblock of some sort but I still don't understand the question. Perhaps if you totally rephrase it.

Hmmm...

Let is try this. Why do you feel it is helpful to point out that people can kill with weapons besides a gun?

 

[dogs4thewin]

OK. So what? Since it is impossible to stop murder 100% we should just give up? That makes no sense.

no, but the fact is it is NOT the guns. If I have a gun and it just sits there it will not do a THING.

 

[Belk]

no, but the fact is it is NOT the guns. If I have a gun and it just sits there it will not do a THING.

I am aware of this. Again, so what? The fact that people can kill others without guns does not negate the fact that it is an extremely effective weapon to kill things and that we have a large number of deaths where a firearm is used. That people can use other means is not an argument against gun control just like people being able to fly in airplanes is not an argument against selling cars.

 

[Xalith]

I agree. However whenever people start to talk about gun control it is immediately labeled as "They are trying to take our weapons!" How can we have a reasonable conversation about gun control if the second it is brought up it is presumed to be over reach?

Because nobody trusts the government. People assume that if we give them an inch, they'll try to take it a mile. Sure, they might SAY that they only want to restrict mentally ill and criminals... but what assurances do we have that they would stop there?

How many times has the government tried to screw over the Internet, again? While it might be a different subject, it still lies on the same lines. We as a whole don't trust the government with hardly anything, because we know that many of the politicians appear to be so out of touch with daily life of the people that they might as well be living on another planet while trying to make laws for a nation whose living conditions they do not even appear to understand.

It looks good on paper... "Keep the guns away from mentally ill people and criminals", but again... that's what WE want the government to do. They've proven time and time again, it isn't about what WE want... it's about what they are paid to do by Big Business.

 

[cow451]

Because nobody trusts the government.

That Constitution thingy is the government. IOW nobody trusts the government except when it's something we want the government to do.

 

[Belk]

Because nobody trusts the government. People assume that if we give them an inch, they'll try to take it a mile. Sure, they might SAY that they only want to restrict mentally ill and criminals... but what assurances do we have that they would stop there?

The second amendment and the SCOTUS spring to mind.

How many times has the government tried to screw over the Internet, again? While it might be a different subject, it still lies on the same lines. We as a whole don't trust the government with hardly anything, because we know that many of the politicians appear to be so out of touch with daily life of the people that they might as well be living on another planet while trying to make laws for a nation whose living conditions they do not even appear to understand.

I am unaware of any attempt by the government to "screw over" the internet. You would think, being a computer professional I would be aware of these attempts. How many times do you feel they have tried this, what did the attempts consist of, and how were they stopped?

It looks good on paper... "Keep the guns away from mentally ill people and criminals", but again... that's what WE want the government to do. They've proven time and time again, it isn't about what WE want... it's about what they are paid to do by Big Business.

In some respects I agree that we have moved to an Oligarchy. So how do we have a reasonable conversation about gun control if you refuse to even talk about it on the grounds that it will result in government overreach? You claim that reasonable gun control is OK but then state it is impossible for you to trust there will be reasonable gun control. That leaves us in a bit of a quandary.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Face it. Someone who wants to kill, will kill. There are books and other literature in circulation explaining how to turn pressure cookers into bombs like the Boston marathon bombing.

Bombs are the future. Guns are so yesterday.

Interesting that an individual as focused on killing as Adam Lanza was, and a whole bunch of others didn't realize that.

Gun homicides kill almost as many people as die in car crashes. That's the size of the problem.

Some car crashes are suicides, it isn't as easy to tell as it is with guns. Include suicides in both figures and the guns outdo the vehicle fatalities by about two to one.

Gun killings are very much today

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Hmmm...

Let is try this. Why do you feel it is helpful to point out that people can kill with weapons besides a gun?

"The thread is meant to illustrate that there are other means of murder available to those who are denied a gun because of mental illness."

The point is that if a nutjob wants to kill you he or she doesn't need a gun. One third of homicides are committed by other means and methods. Constructing a nationwide database of those who are or have been adjudicated as such for the purpose of denying them a gun won't stop them from killing someone. In fact they come up with some pretty diabolical means of murdering someone. We had a case here that was so bad that the details have never been released to the public (I know what happened because a friend on the police force told me, in confidence, and I'll never tell anyone the details myself).

In that regard this person should have been put to death for his heinous crime, but his insanity protected him (my state doesn't have the death penalty anyway). He is in a facility for the criminally insane, at taxpayers expense. The family of the victim has sworn to kill him if he ever would get out, and they'll have plenty of help. This is one more example of the tragic failing of our criminal justice system.

 

[Belk]

"The thread is meant to illustrate that there are other means of murder available to those who are denied a gun because of mental illness."

The point is that if a nutjob wants to kill you he or she doesn't need a gun. One third of homicides are committed by other means and methods. Constructing a nationwide database of those who are or have been adjudicated as such for the purpose of denying them a gun won't stop them from killing someone. In fact they come up with some pretty diabolical means of murdering someone. We had a case here that was so bad that the details have never been released to the public (I know what happened because a friend on the police force told me, in confidence, and I'll never tell anyone the details myself).

In that regard this person should have been put to death for his heinous crime, but his insanity protected him (my state doesn't have the death penalty anyway). He is in a facility for the criminally insane, at taxpayers expense. The family of the victim has sworn to kill him if he ever would get out, and they'll have plenty of help. This is one more example of the tragic failing of our criminal justice system.

So is it your contention that we should not attempt to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

If someone wanted to kill a whole bunch of people they will find a way to do it, with or without guns. How many guns were used in 911and Boston bombing? Perhaps we should ban pressure cookers too huh?