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

[TheQuietRiot]

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?

Well, maybe not pressure cookers but perhaps we should ban hijacking and planting bombs in public.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I guess they should put swords, machete and other dangerous thing on the list not to let mentally ill people to buy.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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

No. I have no problem with the current background check policy. The problem is that the states are often negligent in forwarding this information to the NICS. Then when someone slips through the cracks the gun dealer is targeted by the media for criticism.

It would be better if everyone did their job, but that's just me.

 

[Belk]

No. I have no problem with the current background check policy. The problem is that the states are often negligent in forwarding this information to the NICS. Then when someone slips through the cracks the gun dealer is targeted by the media for criticism.

It would be better if everyone did their job, but that's just me.

OK. So you just wanted to start a thread to let people know that it is possible to kill people with weapons other then guns? I think most everyone is aware of this.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

OK. So you just wanted to start a thread to let people know that it is possible to kill people with weapons other then guns? I think most everyone is aware of this.

When will this 'awareness' manifest itself?

 

[Belk]

I want them to think about it before screaming for more gun control.

OK. Why would the fact that I can kill you with other objects change my stance on gun control?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

OK. Why would the fact that I can kill you with other objects change my stance on gun control?

I rewrote my last post. What is your stance on gun control?

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

When will this 'awareness' manifest itself?

Why should mentally ill people be allowed to get guns? This changes nothing.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why should mentally ill people be allowed to get guns? This changes nothing.

They shouldn't be allowed to have guns, or machetes.

 

[Belk]

When will this 'awareness' manifest itself?

At a guess somewhere around age 5. Why do you think an awareness of being able to kill others with weapons besides guns would change someones stance on gun control?

 

[Xalith]

@cow451 :

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

"The government" in this case are the people currently in office, whom I have next to no trust in. The constitution is a piece of paper which people might... or might not... follow, and/or is open to interpretation. I think we've had enough SCOTUS cases over the years that teaches us that a handful of guys gets to tell us how we should read the Constitution, regardless of whether or not it is agreed by the public in general that's what it means.

The second amendment and the SCOTUS spring to mind.

Assuming the SCOTUS actually does what they are supposed to do.

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?

Really? You never heard of SOPA, or that other proposal that inspired SOPA, or that one that came after it? How about the on-going attempts by various people trying to get rid of net neutrality?

You don't think that these would utterly screw the internet over?

I find that hard to believe that you are a "computer professional" but yet would not be aware of some of the things some of these proposals would have caused.

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.

Quite simply... I've already stated that I agree with reasonable gun control, but the problem relies in how do we actually implement it, enforce it, but yet block government (or as @cow451 wants to specify, the people in office) from abusing it?

That's probably a big reason as to why the NRA fights gun control tooth and nail, because they know that if we start with reasonable gun control, who knows, 10 years later, we might end up with SCOTUS taking some Insane Troll Logic approach to the 2nd Amendment to justify taking guns away from people who haven't committed any crimes and have no mental illnesses.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I've been advised that anyone not in a security force wanting to carry a gun probably has mental issues.



The cool thing about that is when someone shoots someone you can always say 'oh that person was mentally ill'. It is true by definition


Then no non crazy people kill other people.

Of course you can only know that for certain after the fact

.

 

[MorkandMindy]

The gunman had a gun license and a concealed carry license.


He shot the mother and her daughter, both of whom he knew well, the mother was then in serious condition, the daughter died.

The gunman as is often the case shot himself fatally moments later, but most Right Wingers consider a death penalty should deter anyone from doing anything like this.

Now we know the gunman was mentally disturbed so once again the killing was done by a mentally disturbed person, not a normal one so it is perfectly OK to allow guns to be issued without checks, because only bad or mad people would use them for homicide, yes that's right, zero killings except by mad or bad people.

and guns are perfectly safe in anyone else's hands, provided you can without error determine who would use a gun for a bad purpose in the future. Evidently that is not at present possible. But you can always label them bad or mad afterwards to clean up the statistics.

So guns will continue to kill as many Americans as vehicle accidents do, and more than all the wars and acts of terror in US history. Should it be safer to go to Iraq than to a movie theater in the US?

 

[MorkandMindy]

@cow451 : ...

That's probably a big reason as to why the NRA fights gun control tooth and nail, because they know that if we start with reasonable gun control, who knows, 10 years later, we might end up with SCOTUS taking some Insane Troll Logic approach to the 2nd Amendment to justify taking guns away from people who haven't committed any crimes and have no mental illnesses.

Two good examples would be Iraq which is full of guns and a safe and wonderful place to go on holiday, and Australia which implemented a big gun control program more than 10 years later is now just one big devastated prison camp.

both exactly as you would predict

.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

At a guess somewhere around age 5. Why do you think an awareness of being able to kill others with weapons besides guns would change someones stance on gun control?

My point is that they don't seem to be aware that other weapons and methods are even used. It's all about guns.

And, if it's all about guns because guns are the predominant weapon then it follows that the main emphasis should be on suicide rather than homicide as two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides.

And you haven't answered my question; What is your stance on gun control?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The gunman as is often the case shot himself fatally moments later, but most Right Wingers consider a death penalty should deter anyone from doing anything like this.

The 'deterrence via the death penalty' argument is a fabrication of the liberals. Every generation spawns criminals that are undeterred by the punishment of others. The death penalty is the appropriate punishment for many crimes. The greatest benefit is the closure it brings to the family of the victim, and society in general. Society in general because a majority support the death penalty, year after year.

 

[cow451]

@cow451 :

"The government" in this case are the people currently in office, whom I have next to no trust in. The constitution is a piece of paper which people might... or might not... follow, and/or is open to interpretation. I think we've had enough SCOTUS cases over the years that teaches us that a handful of guys gets to tell us how we should read the Constitution, regardless of whether or not it is agreed by the public in general that's what it means.

The Founders died so they set up a Constitution and methods for future generations to deal with matters of interpretations. The Constitution set up a REPUBLIC. We call it a democracy, but it isn't a true democracy. So the SCOTUS and the other two branches of government are there "for [all] the people." That phrase does not mean just the majority. I don't agree with everything SCOTUS does, either. But they are the interpreters as set forth by the founders.

 

[Belk]

My point is that they don't seem to be aware that other weapons and methods are even used. It's all about guns.

Upon what data do you base your observation that they are not aware of other weapons being used?

And, if it's all about guns because guns are the predominant weapon then it follows that the main emphasis should be on suicide rather than homicide as two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides.

So in the other thread you were adamant that we should separate out suicide. Now you want them to be the primary focus? So if we have gun control laws and we work to add suicides in you will be OK with that?

And you haven't answered my question; What is your stance on gun control?

It helps if you ask me your question if you wish me to answer it. I am for sensible gun control legislation and am even more in favor of education. I think a large part of our issue is we do not have guns taught as a standard part of our school curriculum. If we are going to have a culture saturated with guns lets give kids the knowledge they need to handle them safely from the start so they will grow up knowing how to deal with firearms.

 

[Belk]

The 'deterrence via the death penalty' argument is a fabrication of the liberals. Every generation spawns criminals that are undeterred by the punishment of others. The death penalty is the appropriate punishment for many crimes. The greatest benefit is the closure it brings to the family of the victim, and society in general. Society in general because a majority support the death penalty, year after year.

Complete and utter bunk! I have had conversations with multiple conservatives on this board who claim that the death penalty a deterrent. I even had one claim that anyone who is innocent who is put to death was a sacrifice that was needed for the greater good of society. Liberal fabrication my great aunt Fanny.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Complete and utter bunk! I have had conversations with multiple conservatives on this board who claim that the death penalty a deterrent. I even had one claim that anyone who is innocent who is put to death was a sacrifice that was needed for the greater good of society. Liberal fabrication my great aunt Fanny.

Those conservatives are simply mistaken. Anyway it's impossible to know if the DP deters anyone, but one has to assume it does to some degree. The point is that the DP isn't imposed as a deterrent, but punishment. If it does deter others, that's a good thing.