Gun Control II

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
534

[quote]smh23 wrote:

To a certain extent I agree with you–on a personal level, I am infinitely more disturbed by the prospect of a slow, wasting death than of a bullet. And God knows I’ve taken some ridiculous risks.

That said, from a public policy perspective, sensible mental health/gun laws are desirable if they can be made to be effective.[/quote]

Here’s the problem; What exactly is ‘sensible’? Too many people these days think ‘sensible’ means ‘no risk’. So their entire concept of ‘sensibility’ is an impossibility in the real world.

You can’t even walk to work risk-free. Life is risk. I could get in an accident today and become a paraplegic, but does that mean I’m going to cower in my house in fear of reality? Hell no! I could be robbed at the gas pump. I could get to the gun store and be shot by someone robbing the place. I could be shot by some psycho on the gun range. Do you think that’s going to stop me from going to the range today?

When you have the unrealistic idea that life should be risk-free (as in the president’s assertion that “if we can save just one life, we have the obligation to try”), and make laws and policies based on it, you’ll end up turning society into a prison. And you’ll still fail at your objective.

When you accept risk as the equal-but-opposite-reaction to freedom, and make laws based on that, you can have a free society. Our problem is that we’ve become so soft on criminals that we refuse to enforce equal-but-opposite punishments to criminal action.

535

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

To a certain extent I agree with you–on a personal level, I am infinitely more disturbed by the prospect of a slow, wasting death than of a bullet. And God knows I’ve taken some ridiculous risks.

That said, from a public policy perspective, sensible mental health/gun laws are desirable if they can be made to be effective.[/quote]

Here’s the problem; What exactly is ‘sensible’? Too many people these days think ‘sensible’ means ‘no risk’. So their entire concept of ‘sensibility’ is an impossibility in the real world.

You can’t even walk to work risk-free. Life is risk. I could get in an accident today and become a paraplegic, but does that mean I’m going to cower in my house in fear of reality? Hell no! I could be robbed at the gas pump. I could get to the gun store and be shot by someone robbing the place. I could be shot by some psycho on the gun range. Do you think that’s going to stop me from going to the range today?

When you have the unrealistic idea that life should be risk-free (as in the president’s assertion that “if we can save just one life, we have the obligation to try”), and make laws and policies based on it, you’ll end up turning society into a prison. And you still fail at your objective.

When you accept risk as the equal-but-opposite-reaction to freedom, and make laws based on that, you can have a free society. Our problem is that we’ve become so soft on criminals that we refuse to enforce equal-but-opposite punishments to criminal action.[/quote]

I agree with a lot of this, but it’s generally non-specific and has little to do with what I’m talking about.

Regarding risk being the opposite reaction to freedom–the mentally disturbed lose freedoms. They always will, and they should. It is unfortunate, especially when the ailment comes through no fault of their own, but it is necessary.

536

[quote]b89 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
“The shooting range is perhaps not the best place to treat mental illness,”

You’re going to pretend that wasn’t a dig at Chris Kyle’s decision to take him to the gun range?

[/quote]

It was a pretty bad decision in retrospect. Doesn’t make it any less sad. But yeah, if you’d have asked me whether or not I thought shooting was a great way to relieve mental illness, I’d have said, “maybe, but crazy and guns don’t mix well.” And I guess I’d have been right, huh?

But you’re right, I should have just pretended to think that he faked his own death and that his mourning family members are hired actors. That would have been the not-asshole approach, right? That’s what a humane, compassionate soul would do. Silly me. I’ve always been a bit insensitive about tragedy, you know?[/quote]

Sandy Hook was a tragedy.

This isn’t. This is more in the realm live by the sword die by the sword. He was a brave patriotic guy beyond a doubt. But he was also violent. And violent people sometimes come to violent ends. Sad certainly for any who knew him. But not tragic in any kind of way that a bunch of schoolkids dying is.

[/quote]

How exactly do you know he’s a violent person, did you know him personally? Committing violence while at war doesn’t mean someone is inherently violent, it only means they’ve a desire to live to see another day. For him it’s part of his profession as a SEAL, a lot of people want to be a SEAL for the challenge of it. There’s nothing violent about wanting to challenge yourself.

[/quote]
He said, unflinchingly, in an interview on national television, that he had absolutely no problem killing people who want us dead. He also said that his only regret was the people he couldn’t save.

That does not constitute violence, in my mind. Brutal? Yes. Violent? No. Violence is an act of violating someone’s rights. Putting someone in jail unjustly is violence. Killing someone who is intent on killing someone else is anti-violent.

So is there anything wrong with brutal men who will act in the name of stopping violence?

537

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I agree with a lot of this, but it’s generally non-specific and has little to do with what I’m talking about.

Regarding risk being the opposite reaction to freedom–the mentally disturbed lose freedoms. They always will, and they should. It is unfortunate, especially when the ailment comes through no fault of their own, but it is necessary.[/quote]
Again, nobody is arguing against this. We are arguing against using blanket diagnoses to strip away the rights of law-abiding people en-mass.

If a person has shown an immediate desire to harm themselves or others, then steps should be taken to remove their ability to carry out that desire until they are better. Those legal steps are already in place in most states. We don’t need more restrictive laws, we need to do a better job of carrying out the ones we have

538

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
He had 2 hand guns on him[/quote]

I think what you mean is did he shoot them with a combat shotgun/“assault wespon”, not a semi-automatic weapon, which is what 95% of all weapons sold over the last 45 years have been semi-auto whether handgun, shotgun, or rifle. All semi-auto means is “if i pull the trigger one time, it shoots one bullet” without a bolt needing to be manually worked.

Semi automatic weapons are the single most common kind of gun in the history of guns at this point.

540

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]b89 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
“The shooting range is perhaps not the best place to treat mental illness,”

You’re going to pretend that wasn’t a dig at Chris Kyle’s decision to take him to the gun range?

[/quote]

It was a pretty bad decision in retrospect. Doesn’t make it any less sad. But yeah, if you’d have asked me whether or not I thought shooting was a great way to relieve mental illness, I’d have said, “maybe, but crazy and guns don’t mix well.” And I guess I’d have been right, huh?

But you’re right, I should have just pretended to think that he faked his own death and that his mourning family members are hired actors. That would have been the not-asshole approach, right? That’s what a humane, compassionate soul would do. Silly me. I’ve always been a bit insensitive about tragedy, you know?[/quote]

Sandy Hook was a tragedy.

This isn’t. This is more in the realm live by the sword die by the sword. He was a brave patriotic guy beyond a doubt. But he was also violent. And violent people sometimes come to violent ends. Sad certainly for any who knew him. But not tragic in any kind of way that a bunch of schoolkids dying is.

[/quote]

How exactly do you know he’s a violent person, did you know him personally? Committing violence while at war doesn’t mean someone is inherently violent, it only means they’ve a desire to live to see another day. For him it’s part of his profession as a SEAL, a lot of people want to be a SEAL for the challenge of it. There’s nothing violent about wanting to challenge yourself.

[/quote]
He said, unflinchingly, in an interview on national television, that he had absolutely no problem killing people who want us dead. He also said that his only regret was the people he couldn’t save.

That does not constitute violence, in my mind. Brutal? Yes. Violent? No. Violence is an act of violating someone’s rights. Putting someone in jail unjustly is violence. Killing someone who is intent on killing someone else is anti-violent.

So is there anything wrong with brutal men who will act in the name of stopping violence?[/quote]

Please. Sending high velocity lead downrange into a living, breathing person is an inherently violent act. Anyone who disputes this is engaged in some serious semantics. In this case, Chris Kyle was doing bad things (taking life) for very good reasons. His actions were justified. In the end, who really cares? “We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm”

541

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I agree with a lot of this, but it’s generally non-specific and has little to do with what I’m talking about.

Regarding risk being the opposite reaction to freedom–the mentally disturbed lose freedoms. They always will, and they should. It is unfortunate, especially when the ailment comes through no fault of their own, but it is necessary.[/quote]
Again, nobody is arguing against this. We are arguing against using blanket diagnoses to strip away the rights of law-abiding people en-mass.

If a person has shown an immediate desire to harm themselves or others, then steps should be taken to remove their ability to carry out that desire until they are better. Those legal steps are already in place in most states. We don’t need more restrictive laws, we need to do a better job of carrying out the ones we have
[/quote]

Agreed for the most part. Look at that!

542

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

He said, unflinchingly, in an interview on national television, that he had absolutely no problem killing people who want us dead. He also said that his only regret was the people he couldn’t save.

That does not constitute violence, in my mind. Brutal? Yes. Violent? No. Violence is an act of violating someone’s rights. Putting someone in jail unjustly is violence. Killing someone who is intent on killing someone else is anti-violent.

So is there anything wrong with brutal men who will act in the name of stopping violence?[/quote]

Please. Sending high velocity lead downrange into a living, breathing person is an inherently violent act. Anyone who disputes this is engaged in some serious semantics. In this case, Chris Kyle was doing bad things (taking life) for very good reasons. His actions were justified. In the end, who really cares? “We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm”[/quote]
That’s pretty much what I just stated.

In my mind, after taking into account the etymology of the word and the context in which it’s used in ancient writing, ‘violence’ is any act of injustice. Recent usage of the word has influenced its meaning to be synonymous with force or brutality.

A justified act of force is not violence. That is an important distinction to make because our system of law comes from the Bible, and the alteration of Biblical definitions leads to an erosion of knowledge about that law.

I don’t mean that in a spiritual sense, either. Altering the perceptual definition of words in any system of law leads to that law being misunderstood. So, those parts of the Bible that condemn violence, if you alter the perception of violence, can be used to condemn any act of force rather than any act of injustice.

543

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]b89 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
“The shooting range is perhaps not the best place to treat mental illness,”

You’re going to pretend that wasn’t a dig at Chris Kyle’s decision to take him to the gun range?

[/quote]

It was a pretty bad decision in retrospect. Doesn’t make it any less sad. But yeah, if you’d have asked me whether or not I thought shooting was a great way to relieve mental illness, I’d have said, “maybe, but crazy and guns don’t mix well.” And I guess I’d have been right, huh?

But you’re right, I should have just pretended to think that he faked his own death and that his mourning family members are hired actors. That would have been the not-asshole approach, right? That’s what a humane, compassionate soul would do. Silly me. I’ve always been a bit insensitive about tragedy, you know?[/quote]

Sandy Hook was a tragedy.

This isn’t. This is more in the realm live by the sword die by the sword. He was a brave patriotic guy beyond a doubt. But he was also violent. And violent people sometimes come to violent ends. Sad certainly for any who knew him. But not tragic in any kind of way that a bunch of schoolkids dying is.

[/quote]

How exactly do you know he’s a violent person, did you know him personally? Committing violence while at war doesn’t mean someone is inherently violent, it only means they’ve a desire to live to see another day. For him it’s part of his profession as a SEAL, a lot of people want to be a SEAL for the challenge of it. There’s nothing violent about wanting to challenge yourself.

[/quote]

Killing people is a violent job. It attracts violent people with I suppose the possible exception of Alvin York…who was certainly violent as a youth before he swore off of it and certainly became capable of it again when they wouldn’t let him be a conscientious objector.

If part of your profession is killing people then its violent by nature.
There are a lot of ways to challenge yourself that don’t have the intrinsic violence of being a special forces soldier.

Why do you assume that being violent is bad? Sometimes its very good and sometimes its not. But its never tragic when someone that is violent and seeks out violence finds it.

[/quote]

There’s nothing inherently violent about choosing to go through a rigorous selection process and training pipeline. Being able to kill and kill proficiently is just an essential part of being a SEAL, not being able to puts your life and the lives of your teammates in jeopardy. Same with someone being a pilot, some of those men and woman could have to drop a JDAM on a group of people. That’s pretty violent and devastating. Was there a greater motivation for being a pilot in the military or did they dedicate themselves to something for years just to kill someone? I highly doubt it. There are easier ways to kill someone in the military, just about anyone could be an 11B infantryman in the Army.

544

Disarming citizens or even trying to screen for nuts isn’t going to do a damn thing about the rare crazy going on a shooting spree.

A gun is handy, but the biggest school murder in this country was with a bomb in a school (in the 1920s).

The biggest act of terrorism used 3 airplanes and common box cutters.

The biggest home-grown act of terrorism used fertilizer and a Ryder truck.

In short, where there is a will there is a way.

No gun? Use a car and a crowd. Molotov cocktails in a rave.

Heck mix gasoline and ivory snow (makes Napalm – you can also use Tide) and go pour it along the school and the whole thing will burn down in minutes. The bricks will burn.

There is no way to keep nuts from weapons. What needs to change is the mental health system.

There are too many crazy people walking around and there is little anyone can do to lock them up. There needs to be much better and much larger secure mental health facilities and the legal barriers to locking up people needs to be much lower.

(It would all but end the “homeless” problem, too.)

545
546

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
“The shooting range is perhaps not the best place to treat mental illness,”

You’re going to pretend that wasn’t a dig at Chris Kyle’s decision to take him to the gun range?

[/quote]

It was a pretty bad decision in retrospect. Doesn’t make it any less sad. But yeah, if you’d have asked me whether or not I thought shooting was a great way to relieve mental illness, I’d have said, “maybe, but crazy and guns don’t mix well.” And I guess I’d have been right, huh?

But you’re right, I should have just pretended to think that he faked his own death and that his mourning family members are hired actors. That would have been the not-asshole approach, right? That’s what a humane, compassionate soul would do. Silly me. I’ve always been a bit insensitive about tragedy, you know?[/quote]

Sandy Hook was a tragedy.

This isn’t. This is more in the realm live by the sword die by the sword. He was a brave patriotic guy beyond a doubt. But he was also violent. And violent people sometimes come to violent ends. Sad certainly for any who knew him. But not tragic in any kind of way that a bunch of schoolkids dying is.

[/quote]

You and the formerly honorable Ron Paul can go fuck yourselves. [/quote]

Whatever. As a disciple of Rand you could say he got what he had coming. There is no rational self interest involved in charity. And as its a sign of weakness the uberman killed the other.
[/quote]

Are you high?

547

Better be careful, Mr. Morgan. That shit’ll get good to ya. They should’ve taken him out and let him shoot it at night, at some old cars, with tracers.

548

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

…95% of all weapons sold over the last 45 years have been semi-auto whether handgun, shotgun, or rifle…[/quote]

Ummm…no. Don’t know the exact percentage but 95% is way too high.[/quote]

Particularly shotguns, I would think that most sold are pump action. Especially considering the popularity of the Remington 870.

549

2 California lawmakers are proposing a bill that would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance. The stupidity never ends.

550

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
2 California lawmakers are proposing a bill that would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance. The stupidity never ends.[/quote]
Not entirely a bad idea. Take off every other regulation and you need some minimum liability to own a handgun but if you have the ability to ensure yourself for a 100 million you can own a tank or a guided missile. Truly set it up that you could own any weapon you chose so long as you could either self insure or have a policy to cover the possible damage you could do.

I wonder how much it would take to underwrite a baby nuke. Localities could get involved…today the 49’s beat the Raiders and in response Oakland set off a baby nuke in downtown San Francisco. Then they could either pay San Francisco some huge settlement or San Francisco could retaliate.

551

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
2 California lawmakers are proposing a bill that would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance. The stupidity never ends.[/quote]
Not entirely a bad idea. Take off every other regulation and you need some minimum liability to own a handgun but if you have the ability to ensure yourself for a 100 million you can own a tank or a guided missile. Truly set it up that you could own any weapon you chose so long as you could either self insure or have a policy to cover the possible damage you could do.

I wonder how much it would take to underwrite a baby nuke. Localities could get involved…today the 49’s beat the Raiders and in response Oakland set off a baby nuke in downtown San Francisco. Then they could either pay San Francisco some huge settlement or San Francisco could retaliate. [/quote]

I am sure all the gang bangers and cartel members are calling up State Farm as we speak.

553

Looks like California and New York are in a pissing (on the Bill of Rights) contest.

http://news.yahoo.com/calif-seeks-adopt-nations-toughest-gun-laws-220030130.html