Gun Control

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Working on the assumption she was relatively sane, I still wouldn’t go as far as to outright prohibit her from owning guns on the basis of her sons mental condition - but at the very least make sure there was something to make it less easy to access (case, padlock, etc).

Of course, this in turn would necessitate a third party to check every so often - should this be government or privately (contracted by the government) done? And while enlarging the government is traditionally (and probably rightfully) seen as bad, is this an instance of acceptable growth?[/quote]

My next door neighbor is relatively sane. She does have a mental illness and receives treatment.
She has four children, including a 19 year old son, and no father is around.
My husband and I are actively engaged in their lives in small ways.

I can tell you for a fact that if she decided to own a gun and the government was going to check from time to time - I would not trust it.
As a neighbor she would lose my association and I would chose to move out if she continued to keep the guns.

My neighbor has the common sense not to own guns in her situation.

This woman, Nancy Lanza, failed herself, her child, her community and her country.

I am strongly inclined to believe growth is in the direction of mental health acceptance, support, transparency and direct contact/interference.

Why not have social services call at Nancy Lanza’s house to check on her and her son’s mental health from time to time instead of checking whether she has put her guns away appropriately after every weekly shooting at the range?

And what was her mentally ill son doing at the shooting range?
[/quote]

I’m not suggesting just check on the guns, but when you have mentally ill people, there needs to be a system of barriers in place to stop them from hurting people. There are some barriers, there just need to be a few more.[/quote]

Typical liberal response. There need to be more barriers to owning firearms, and then a few more and then a few more…and then OOPS no more firearms. Bye bye second amendment.

182

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The guy said he would give them up as well. Pay attention treco. H factor has been gaming this entire board now for better than a month.[/quote]

Stop omitting the rest. He said he would give them up if he thought it would help stop things like this happening.

Which he doesn’t.[/quote]

Liberals say things like, “I would give up my weapons if it would help stop things like this from happening.” So, all you’ve done is repeat what I’ve been saying.

Whereas real libertarians would never consider saying such a thing.

But you know all that.
[/quote]

God you are pathetic. I stated if I HONESTLY thought all these horrific crimes would be stopped by simply giving up guns then I would in a heartbeat. I clearly pointed out why this wouldn’t be the case. This was quite obvious to people.

Your obsession with me needs to stop. You bring it into multiple threads and other users have asked you to stop ruining threads.

I truly apologize for calling you out in the national debt thread, I had no idea it would make you someone who would follow me around from thread to thread and constantly drag the rest of the forum down. Other users are saying the same thing. Listen to them. I don’t care if you think I’m a Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Libertarian, Buddhist, Catholic, whatever. Just quit ruining threads with your hate for me.

183

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
ZEB,

yes I agree school shootings is a relatively new phenomena but there is no doubt that America has a history of violence and the use of violence to settle inner turmoil with ourselves and with others.

There is a proliferation of violent content in America and it is exacerbated by video games that desensitize, the internet and mass media but you cannot separate the media from the culture. America is and has always been violent and the data is there in Uniform Crime Reports, historical crime statistics, artifacts, time pieces etc…

We cannot look at history through a lens and yearn for “better” times. We have to be honest about history. People do not even remember how violent New York use to be with the Draft Riots of 1863. [/quote]

But, this has nothing to do with America’s history. You can check back to the late 1800’s there were shootings, hangings and other types of violence. But there was always a theme present, good vs evil. Cattle rustlers if caught were hanged, horse thieves where sometimes hanged. Men with guns would go after other men with guns.

While there were not nearly as many gun fights as the movies would have us believe the ones that did take place, like the shoot out at OK Corral for example was a confrontation between two sides each having guns. And the central theme was the same as most other real western violence, good vs evil.

School shootings are largely a phenomenon of the past 15 or so years.

If we look closely we shouldn’t be surprised. Virtually every film produced by Hollywood is rated R with sex and violence. It seems now the only films that are not rated a R are childrens films. And many of those “children” get into the R rated films as well. Many video games are horribly violent as well. Just the other night I was flipping channels on TV and came across a Christmas Family Guy episode where Stewi and Brian were playing Santa Clause and were found in this man’s home. The man said “who are you guys?” Brian said “we’re Santa Claus” The guy said “I’m calling the police.” Stewie took out a baseball bat and literally beat the man to death! He then suffed his body in the closet and left a trail of blood.

Now I get it, it’s a cartoon and I’m sure none of us hear are going to act out because we happened to see one cartoon character beating another one to death with a baseball bat. But this epitomizes just one more act of violence that our children are exposed to on a daily basis. As a parent it is an uphill struggle to keep kids away from this type of entertainment as it is everywhere.

We created the creature that killed those children and while the country mourns these deaths and some threaten tighter gun laws we are in the process of creating even more. As we are not looking at the real problem. When gun laws were even more loose we had less senseless violence. Now that they are more restrictive we have more senseless violence. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that it’s not gun laws that are creating people who want to kill the innocent. Violence springs from the mind. It is put there by images placed in an immature mind. And it’s allowed to fester by the misreading of other incidents in that childs life. Sometimes by a broken home (there are more now than ever), or abuse of some type. But always fostered by what that child sees and hears around him on a daily basis.

Young impressionable minds used to be treated to good humor and love on television and in the movies. That has all been replaced by a double dose of sex and meaningless violence. If it was violent back in the day it was the good guys killing the bad guys. There was a purpose not unlike the many wars that the US has fought.

And because of all this we are a decaying society and unless we stop pumping this sewage into our youth we will get the same result that we were treated to a few days ago.

We have inadvertently created these mad men. And if someone thinks I’m wrong I’d love to hear their theory on why our young people are now killing innocent people in so very many school shootings.

184

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The guy said he would give them up as well. Pay attention treco. H factor has been gaming this entire board now for better than a month.[/quote]

Stop omitting the rest. He said he would give them up if he thought it would help stop things like this happening.

Which he doesn’t.[/quote]

Liberals say things like, “I would give up my weapons if it would help stop things like this from happening.” So, all you’ve done is repeat what I’ve been saying.

Whereas real libertarians would never consider saying such a thing.

But you know all that.
[/quote]

God you are pathetic. I stated if I HONESTLY thought all these horrific crimes would be stopped by simply giving up guns then I would in a heartbeat. I clearly pointed out why this wouldn’t be the case. This was quite obvious to people.

Your obsession with me needs to stop. You bring it into multiple threads and other users have asked you to stop ruining threads.

I truly apologize for calling you out in the national debt thread, I had no idea it would make you someone who would follow me around from thread to thread and constantly drag the rest of the forum down. Other users are saying the same thing. Listen to them. I don’t care if you think I’m a Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Libertarian, Buddhist, Catholic, whatever. Just quit ruining threads with your hate for me.

[/quote]

You do care if I think you are a liberal as every time I call you out on your many liberal positions you feel the need to respond. So stop pretending that you don’t care what I think. You care a great deal of what I think.

Secondly, you should apologize but not for our debate in the debt forum. I enjoyed handing you your head in that debate. What you should apologize for is running all over the forum with your many misrepresentations of who you are and what you actually stand for.

Also, still waiting for your harsh critique of Barack Obama. Come on H factor you’ve attacked GW Bush and the late Ronald Reagan, but you are remarkably silent on the most liberal President that this country has ever had.

Uh huh.

185

By responding you just feed his ego.

186

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
By responding you just feed his ego.[/quote]

I know. He just walks around any thread I go into berating me for no reason other than the fact that I hurt his national debt thread by showing he didn’t care about it under GWB using his own posts. He calls it handing me my head, but the only thing he did was call me a stalker after I proved him wrong. I don’t really care if he doesn’t like me, but it is ruining multiple threads as no matter where I post he shows up to talk a bunch of shit on me. It’s essentially all he does on PWI.

How do you put someone on ignore?

187

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
By responding you just feed his ego.[/quote]

I know. He just walks around any thread I go into berating me for no reason other than the fact that I hurt his national debt thread by showing he didn’t care about it under GWB using his own posts. He calls it handing me my head, but the only thing he did was call me a stalker after I proved him wrong. I don’t really care if he doesn’t like me, but it is ruining multiple threads as no matter where I post he shows up to talk a bunch of shit on me. It’s essentially all he does on PWI.

How do you put someone on ignore?[/quote]

Talking about me to another poster is not the way to ignore me. But it is a cowardly way to attempt to get another shot in at me without me responding. And you have a very poor memory. In the debt thread your feeble arguments were all defeated one at a time.

Your latest angle is laughable. You care so much about the integrity of the threads…it’s not about you. Nooo, it’s about the threads.

You are as transparent as your hero Barack Obama.

And just as much of a liar.

188

Children…?!

189

Let it go.

190

[quote]H factor wrote:

You were owned Zeb. It’s crystal clear. Let it go. [/quote]

Hey, the man who wants to ignore me continues to attack me. This reminds me of your political positions. One moment you are a libertarian and the next a liberal. LOL…you’re the schizophrenic poster.

I’ve won and lost debates, over the years that one I won. But I wonder why you would bring that here? I thought you were worried about the integrity of the thread. No…I guess that was the other H factor. By the way I posted a pretty lengthy piece on why gun control is not the answer. Yet you didn’t respond to that. Which H factor was that who wanted to stay on topic?

Well, one thing for sure, people may like me or hate me but at least they know what I’m all about and where I’m coming from. Unlike you I don’t run all over the site trying to play both sides from the middle.

And since you are a libertarian (at least part of the time) you should be really upset over Barack Obama raising the debt and his many other liberal policies like national health care.

But for some reason I’ve not read much from you on these things. Yet, you find the time to attack GW Bush and Ronald Reagan.

Now why do you suppose that is?

As a liberal are you still blaming GW Bush, as you did in prior threads?

Here’s why your so upset with me H factor…

You don’t like the fact that I’m calling you out on your bullshit. I’ve outed you for the lefty that you are. And that pisses you off to no end.

Simple.

191

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

You were owned Zeb. It’s crystal clear. Let it go. [/quote]

Hey, the man who wants to ignore me continues to attack me. This reminds me of your political positions. One moment you are a libertarian and the next a liberal. LOL…you’re the schizophrenic poster.

I’ve won and lost debates, over the years that one I won. But I wonder why you would bring that here? I thought you were worried about the integrity of the thread. No…I guess that was the other H factor. By the way I posted a pretty lengthy piece on why gun control is not the answer. Yet you didn’t respond to that. Which H factor was that who wanted to stay on topic?

Well, one thing for sure, people may like me or hate me but at least they know what I’m all about and where I’m coming from. Unlike you I don’t run all over the site trying to play both sides from the middle.

And since you are a libertarian (at least part of the time) you should be really upset over Barack Obama raising the debt and his many other liberal policies like national health care.

But for some reason I’ve not read much from you on these things. Yet, you find the time to attack GW Bush and Ronald Reagan.

Now why do you suppose that is?

As a liberal are you still blaming GW Bush, as you did in prior threads?

Here’s why your so upset with me H factor…

You don’t like the fact that I’m calling you out on your bullshit. I’ve outed you for the lefty that you are. And that pisses you off to no end.

Simple.[/quote]

You annoy me, you don’t piss me off. You stalk me from thread to thread with your bizarre obsession over my posts. You ignore any post I make that doesn’t fit the description of what you hope I am. You don’t try to run from who you are? Read the national debt thread again. You constantly rail against big government when it’s the Democrats and talk about how government is the problem but lap it up from the right side. No one knows who you are. A guy who hates expanding government except for when Reagan did it? A guy who hates the government getting bigger except where GWB did?

I called you out on your bullshit and it pissed YOU off. You’ve been trying to call me out ever since that happened. You started by calling me a stalker (funny from a guy who attacks every thread I post in). That didn’t work and people called you out. So you started calling me a liberal. People called you out again and told you to shut up again. You’re a troll who should have been banned a long time ago. You add nothing to this place. Your only purpose is to troll people and that has pretty much what you’ve done for years on here. A very sad life you must lead.

192

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

What if you had a weapon just as effective as a gun minus the killing part. Like point, aim, shoot, boom they are unconscious for an hour or so guaranteed. I’m not saying one exists right now but if there was.[/quote]

Minus the killing part means plus he is coming back for vengeance.

Would you wish that on your wife?

Would you enjoy your freedom being at leisure or at work in the knowledge that an animal with no conscience is coming back to violate what is only yours?

And where do we “store” this unconscious animal once he regains consciousness?

Are you ok with paying to keep evil alive?

What is your plan for dealing with the rapist that regains consciousness?

Sure I can use a tranquilizer gun. But then what? What system do you have in place to ensure I am safe from that threat and at what cost?
[/quote]

Okay that is a fair answer. Death penalty for an attempted crime.[/quote]

And yet you enjoy the death penalty for the crime of being unborn and minding one’s business in the womb.

Yes, it is her body and it is my body, too, being violated with this rapist.

Be consistent.
[/quote]

Not sure what you mean there. I did not disprove of what you said even though it may have been interpreted as sarcastic, which it was not.[/quote]

You are right. I never though of it that way before. Tell me more!

“Death penalty for an attempted crime” instead of self defense from grave bodily injury or death from a violent criminal threat.

Your capacity for spinning the wheel is astounding! It would probably make you a good shooter.
I never thought that such spin was possible, thank you for showing me what your mind is capable of.

Good luck to your wife should she ever need you to defend her with your Star Trek Phaser.

And may the government always be there on time to protect her when the rapist wakes up from his innocent sleep.

193

Are gun owners against mental health screenings and safety courses? I own several guns and may get an ar15 in the next week or so in case of a ban fyi. I do think a safety course and mental health screening is a reasonable compromise going forward. It could be an elective for high school seniors so parents that don’t want their kids involved with guns at all (stupid in my opinion, but their right as parents) can stop their kids from being in the course. It could also be taught like drivers ed.

Hows that?

194

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Are gun owners against mental health screenings and safety courses? I own several guns and may get an ar15 in the next week or so in case of a ban fyi. I do think a safety course and mental health screening is a reasonable compromise going forward. It could be an elective for high school seniors so parents that don’t want their kids involved with guns at all (stupid in my opinion, but their right as parents) can stop their kids from being in the course. It could also be taught like drivers ed.

Hows that?[/quote]

Neither of those would bother me, though the details of the mental health screening might.

Then again, I’m a massive liberal so why care right :slight_smile: The detective caught me!

195

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Are gun owners against mental health screenings and safety courses? I own several guns and may get an ar15 in the next week or so in case of a ban fyi. [/quote]

I’m not a gun owner but I am against any sort of screening process for any reason at all from government institutions - mostly because the government is filled with incompetent rejects that only work for the government because they cannot do anything else productive.

Property owners, on the other hand, have the right to screen other people before entering their property if they wish but the government does not have this right.

196

Stories like this are why we need emotionless conversation on guns.

197

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Are gun owners against mental health screenings and safety courses? I own several guns and may get an ar15 in the next week or so in case of a ban fyi. [/quote]

I’m not a gun owner but I am against any sort of screening process for any reason at all from government institutions - mostly because the government is filled with incompetent rejects that only work for the government because they cannot do anything else productive.

Property owners, on the other hand, have the right to screen other people before entering their property if they wish but the government does not have this right.[/quote]

To buy certain weapons you have to pass a screening by a private doctor, not a gov doctor. How’s that?

198

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Are gun owners against mental health screenings and safety courses? I own several guns and may get an ar15 in the next week or so in case of a ban fyi. [/quote]

I’m not a gun owner but I am against any sort of screening process for any reason at all from government institutions - mostly because the government is filled with incompetent rejects that only work for the government because they cannot do anything else productive.

Property owners, on the other hand, have the right to screen other people before entering their property if they wish but the government does not have this right.[/quote]

To buy certain weapons you have to pass a screening by a private doctor, not a gov doctor. How’s that?[/quote]

Mandated by whom? The free market?

You jest, right?

199

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Are gun owners against mental health screenings and safety courses? I own several guns and may get an ar15 in the next week or so in case of a ban fyi. [/quote]

I’m not a gun owner but I am against any sort of screening process for any reason at all from government institutions - mostly because the government is filled with incompetent rejects that only work for the government because they cannot do anything else productive.

Property owners, on the other hand, have the right to screen other people before entering their property if they wish but the government does not have this right.[/quote]

To buy certain weapons you have to pass a screening by a private doctor, not a gov doctor. How’s that?[/quote]

My issue with the screening is what exactly is going to be screened for? Who decides what are the correct questions and correct responses? That’s why I said the details may be important. Clearly if one has some kind of documented history that raises some serious red flags I could be swayed, but the government deciding the questions is iffy to me like Lift said. You’re ok with THEM deciding who is ok to be armed and who is not? Why?

200

Even if screening someone worked what would the test be? And just because someone has a history is that a reason to deny them the right to protect themselves?

If it does not produce 100% accuracy then there is no point because it will just cost money while not achieving its stated goal.

Rather than taking guns away we should hand them out to everyone.