|
|
|
Neph's POLITE Gun Debate
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
12. June 2007 @ 08:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
Senior Member
|
12. June 2007 @ 18:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
Gerry,
I disagree,
22-250 with 52 Gr. Hollow Point Boat Tails. Great way to inflict maximum damage to the varmint in question. They don't suffer at all as their head is vaporized upon impact. Really puts fear into a murder of crows when one of their own suddenly turns into a poof bird a couple of seconds before they hear anything.
|
|
gerry1
Suspended permanently
|
13. June 2007 @ 05:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
@BlivetNC ... well, you've outdone me! ...I use to do unspeakable things with frogs and firecrackers when I was a kid (I was a real sociopath in the making LOL!)
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
13. June 2007 @ 17:20 |
Link to this message
|
US House passes gun control bill
The US House of Representatives has passed a bill that would bolster background checks on gun buyers.
If it passes the Senate, it will be the first major gun control law since 1994.
It was drafted after April's Virginia Tech massacre, which exposed how gunman Cho Seung-hui was able to buy two guns despite having mental health problems.
The new bill would close a gap by requiring states to automate reporting of mental health and criminal records to a database used to check gun buyers.
To become law, the measure must be approved by the Senate and be signed by President George W Bush.
The bill came as a White House report on the Virginia Tech shootings was released which said concerns over privacy laws meant data on potentially dangerous students often did not make it on to the federal gun purchase database.
A judge had ruled Cho needed mental health treatment but because the report never made it into federal records, he was able legally to buy the guns he used to kill 32 people and himself.
'Save lives'
Democratic Rep John Dingell, a strong supporter of gun rights, was one of those involved in negotiations on the House bill.
He said the legislation would "make a better system for public safety, law enforcement and for lawful and honest gun owners".
The Virginia Tech shootings had "made it clear" that the national database used for gun ownership checks needed to be improved with better information and better technology, he said.
Democratic Rep Carolyn McCarthy, who ran for office on a gun control platform after her husband was shot dead on a train, was also involved in drafting the bill.
"This is a good policy that will change lives," she said.
House Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi also welcomed the move, saying: "As the Virginia Tech shooting reminded us, there is an urgent need to improve the background check system."
Gun lobby
The legislation has been backed by the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA) gun lobby, which was involved in discussions with congressmen.
The NRA said the bill would not disqualify anyone currently legally able to buy a weapon.
Under legislation passed in 1968, people barred from buying guns include those convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison, drug addicts and those found by a court to be mentally disabled.
The new bill, if it becomes law, would require states to supply the federal database with records of those disqualified from gun ownership and impose penalties if they fail to meet certain benchmarks.
It also provides $250 million (£125m) a year over the next three years to help states automate their systems to meet the new requirements.
The last major gun control legislation, passed in 1994 when the Democrats last controlled the House, banned some assault weapons.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6750869.stm
|
|
gerry1
Suspended permanently
|
13. June 2007 @ 17:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
I can understand criminal records but "mental health" could open a serious can of worms ... there are a lot of "mental health" problems (probably most of them) that don't make someone a danger.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. June 2007 @ 18:18 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by gerry1:
I can understand criminal records but "mental health" could open a serious can of worms ... there are a lot of "mental health" problems (probably most of them) that don't make someone a danger.
Sorry after the VA tech shooting its high time mental health is brought into the process.
Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.
|
Senior Member
|
13. June 2007 @ 18:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
I agree, the mentally challenged should not be able to purchase or own firearms. Too many bad scenarios out there waiting to happen.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. June 2007 @ 19:08 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by blivetNC:
I agree, the mentally challenged should not be able to purchase or own firearms. Too many bad scenarios out there waiting to happen.
well the trouble is they will ban anyone that has had a "questionable" meeting with a shrink but at least tis a start to brining it in it can be polished over the years like most laws get polished via states/time anyway.
Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
14. June 2007 @ 03:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
I agree the mental health of gun buyers should be a consideration. One problem is the newly passed HIPPA law which prevents a person's medical file from being shared without his permission.
|
|
gerry1
Suspended permanently
|
14. June 2007 @ 04:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
I know understand what all of you are saying but "criminal convictions" are a rather cut and dried thing while mental health is about as subjective as you can get. A sociopath or psychopath can certainly be a danger while an OCD patient is in behavior modification because using three alarm clocks is annoying his neighbors and he gets anxious because his sock drawer is in disarray; can any database differentiate between the two?
Mind you, guys, I'm only playing devil's advocate here. Living in Philly, as I've mentioned many times, leaves me with a distaste for the easy availability of weapons. I think the ex-seminarian in me is trying to imagine how they'll be able to validate the reasoning.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. June 2007 @ 04:31
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. June 2007 @ 09:18 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by gerry1:
I know understand what all of you are saying but "criminal convictions" are a rather cut and dried thing while mental health is about as subjective as you can get. A sociopath or psychopath can certainly be a danger while an OCD patient is in behavior modification because using three alarm clocks is annoying his neighbors and he gets anxious because his sock drawer is in disarray; can any database differentiate between the two?
Mind you, guys, I'm only playing devil's advocate here. Living in Philly, as I've mentioned many times, leaves me with a distaste for the easy availability of weapons. I think the ex-seminarian in me is trying to imagine how they'll be able to validate the reasoning.
you are right,however I see it only for depression,suicide atemps that with any mental disorder that makes them a "threat" to them selfs or others will be gone after first,sadly this is the attention span of humans we are talking abotu tis going to take the law to evolve over time to get it right, with out that first step tho nothing will change.
Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
14. June 2007 @ 21:01 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by gerry1:
I know understand what all of you are saying but "criminal convictions" are a rather cut and dried thing while mental health is about as subjective as you can get. A sociopath or psychopath can certainly be a danger while an OCD patient is in behavior modification because using three alarm clocks is annoying his neighbors and he gets anxious because his sock drawer is in disarray; can any database differentiate between the two?
Mind you, guys, I'm only playing devil's advocate here. Living in Philly, as I've mentioned many times, leaves me with a distaste for the easy availability of weapons. I think the ex-seminarian in me is trying to imagine how they'll be able to validate the reasoning.
Let's err on the side of safety. If a person is listed with a psych problem, I agree they should be listed as being unable to buy a firearm. If the person has a problem that doesn't pose a problem, then they should have the right to petition for a firearm license. Still, I think the listing of psych problems should be enough to prevent the initial sale of a firearm.
I own a number of firearms. They are kept in a safe. They're not accessible by children or thieves. I enjoy collecting and shooting. I have one gun assigned for home protection and the rest stay fairly inaccessible. My guns kill far fewer people than cars. That leaves me wondering about a lot of the legislation.
An interesting thought is that people won't touch firearms because a friend died from a gunshot wound. What amazes me is that a friend can die in a car accident and everyone drives to the funeral home and the cemetery without a thought to the cause of death.
Sometimes I wonder if everyone is playing with a full deck.
|
Senior Member
|
15. June 2007 @ 04:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
@Pacman777, I agree fully, but what amazes me still is how many people will still get behind the wheel after consuming a few too many beers, or how many of these idiots still drive while paying more attention to their cell phones, Blackberries, computers, or some other non essential part of the car while driving. I'm sure autos kill far more people per year than firearms and knives do each year.
|
|
gerry1
Suspended permanently
|
15. June 2007 @ 04:40 |
Link to this message
|
@BliverNC..Quote:
but what amazes me still is how many people will still get behind the wheel after consuming a few too many beers
That one I can understand (in part). I was with a friend some years ago when he got pulled over on a "routine check" or road block which they tend to do here on big holidays. He had (what we thought to be) very little to drink (I wasn't driving so I was rather plastered) but Jack had one scotch and soda (which proved to be too strong it would seem) which he nursed for an hour or so before we left the party. It was enough to make him "legally drunk". Sure, some people just drink and drink and then get behind the wheel but there are those who think they're being responsible who are still "drunk driving". It doesn't take much at all. Moral of the story: don't drink at all if you're going to get behind the wheel because it takes much less than you think to be considered drunk).
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. June 2007 @ 04:42
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
15. June 2007 @ 12:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
Over in the UK, it is claimed that you are more dangerous behind the wheel whilst using a mobile phone than you are drunk.
Depends on ones definition of drunk!
Gif by Phantom69
 |
|
michelle9
Junior Member
|
15. June 2007 @ 13:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'm sorry, but one of the the most inescapable facts of life is that you and everyone else will die at some point. I'm just not getting the whole "if we curtail and control every dangerous aspect of life until you can't even open a champagne bottle because that cork flying about could conceivable put an eye out, then we will all live forever" mentality. It's not going to happen folks! You're not omnipotent, you'll never be able to presage all the crazies. All you do is curtail rights for the rest of us. This belief that stricter and stricter controls on everything is going to make it all safer, make it all better is nuts. Everyone always wants to make new laws for every little thing "thousands of people died last year because of old age, we should really have a law to prevent that kind of thing!" And refine the laws after they're made? What laws already out there has this tact worked with?
I have to paraphrase Ben Franklin, as nuts as he may have been, I'll take my freedom over security any day.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
15. June 2007 @ 15:05 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by michelle9:
I'm sorry, but one of the the most inescapable facts of life is that you and everyone else will die at some point. I'm just not getting the whole "if we curtail and control every dangerous aspect of life until you can't even open a champagne bottle because that cork flying about could conceivable put an eye out, then we will all live forever" mentality. It's not going to happen folks! You're not omnipotent, you'll never be able to presage all the crazies. All you do is curtail rights for the rest of us. This belief that stricter and stricter controls on everything is going to make it all safer, make it all better is nuts. Everyone always wants to make new laws for every little thing "thousands of people died last year because of old age, we should really have a law to prevent that kind of thing!" And refine the laws after they're made? What laws already out there has this tact worked with?
I have to paraphrase Ben Franklin, as nuts as he may have been, I'll take my freedom over security any day.
=====================================================================
meh there are checks and balances to life get over it in order tog et a gun tis not to unreasonable to be checked to make sure you are neither crazy or a criminal.
Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.
|
|
michelle9
Junior Member
|
15. June 2007 @ 15:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
What's your definition of crazy then?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
15. June 2007 @ 15:59 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by michelle9:
What's your definition of crazy then?
Suicidal,clinical depression and metal disorder that evolve voices and reality issues like schizophrenia, anti social or sociopaths dont fall into it unless they break the law or become "mentally broken",being a anti people ass dose not make you crazy merely smarter than your average sheeple :P
besides its not what I think the way it works a law is made then if enough dislike it it will be removed or altered look at the evolution of gun laws and criminals.
Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. June 2007 @ 15:59
|
|
michelle9
Junior Member
|
15. June 2007 @ 16:32 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
besides its not what I think the way it works a law is made then if enough dislike it it will be removed or altered look at the evolution of gun laws and criminals.
Yeah, I wish it worked like that. Unfortunately laws today are made according to political lobbies and who has the most money and/or power. Do you really think that there was an overwhelming amount of people here in California who said "Yeah, a seat belt law would be a fantastic thing!". No, legislation decided to use it as a vehicle in order to generate more revenue for the state via fines and to please a few of their more rabid voters at the same time.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
15. June 2007 @ 17:15 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
[quote]besides its not what I think the way it works a law is made then if enough dislike it it will be removed or altered look at the evolution of gun laws and criminals.
Yeah, I wish it worked like that. Unfortunately laws today are made according to political lobbies and who has the most money and/or power. Do you really think that there was an overwhelming amount of people here in California who said "Yeah, a seat belt law would be a fantastic thing!". No, legislation decided to use it as a vehicle in order to generate more revenue for the state via fines and to please a few of their more rabid voters at the same time.[/quote]
===============================================================
seat belt and "proof of insurance" laws are fou tax schemes to drain the citizen of more money there a bit different than gun laws, you forget the gun lobby has enough power to make sure the basics of mental health are checked I doubt they would siczo and ban everyone who goes to a shrink weekly to bitch about mother. . they are goign to start with the mentally insane and then most likely the depressed or anxious.
I wonder when they will ban drunks from cars....cars need protecting too you know! LOL
Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. June 2007 @ 17:18
|
Senior Member
|
15. June 2007 @ 23:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'm on the fence about background checks and also how it relates to mental health. On the one hand, mental health checks potentially will do as much if not more good than criminal checks: It's the kooks who go out and commit mass-killings ala Virginia Tech, etc. On the other hand, there's a lot weighing against them. For one, mental health is largely the subjective opinion of a single individual e.g. a psychiatrist and your rights therefore depend on the opinion of only one person. Moreover, historically, it's foolish to think, as some have suggested, that disqualification under the guise of "mental health" will only be limited to extreme cases; history has told us, time and again (and especially with gun control matters), that the definitions of who should be disqualified from owning firearms will eventually be broadened to include much less threatening people, perhaps those with no appreciable disability at all. We've already seen well-intentioned laws to prevent violent felons from getting guns expanded to non-violent felons and even relatively minor misdemeanor offenses. With that history (as well as a laundry list of other cases of gun control has being expnaded far beyond their original intent), it is foolish to think that lawmakers will simply bar "the really dangerous nuts" and no move on to other, unthreatening groups. Historically, there are always folks who are not willing to settle on a modest, common-sense laws, but who are willing to pust the limit and enact - often, subtly - even-exoanding definitios of what makes a person mentally unfit.
-Do you believe you own your computer and shouldn't be told what you can run and do? Then say *NO* to Microsoft Vista!
-Since half the questions here involve media problems, here ya go: Only use Verbatim or Taiyo-Yuden discs (get your TYs from Rima.com, not Supermediastore or meritline). Forget the rest, no matter what "brand" they sell under. Always burn at 4x speed regardless of the speed rating of this discs or your drive. If you have burn problems with these then you have to update your drive's firmware. For double-layer discs, only use Verbatim DVD+R DL and burn them at 2.4x speed.
|
|
gerry1
Suspended permanently
|
16. June 2007 @ 08:28 |
Link to this message
|
Dunker wrote:
Quote:
...the definitions of who should be disqualified from owning firearms will eventually be broadened to include much less threatening people, perhaps those with no appreciable disability at all.
That was, at least for the most part, my point. What constitues a "public danger" when it comes to mental illness?
@Pac...I disagree with you on a number of points: sure, men are more likely to commit suicide with a firearm than women, but it's not all that common among people who actually do commit suicide. Yes, the are people who jump in front of trains, jump off buildings and bridges, slit their wrists, put a gun in their mouth or temple etc. but the majority opt for more calculated and less painful methods; not having a weapon is not going to stop anyone. "Sociopaths", however, are the most dangerous people on the planet. They are, for lack of a better explanation, people without a conscience; they know what the law and society says is right and wrong but their understanding is purely on an intellectual level whith no understand whatsoever as to "why" its wrong.
@Pulsar ... nice to see you again guy!
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
16. June 2007 @ 08:49 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Dunker wrote:
[quote]...the definitions of who should be disqualified from owning firearms will eventually be broadened to include much less threatening people, perhaps those with no appreciable disability at all.
That was, at least for the most part, my point. What constitues a "public danger" when it comes to mental illness?
@Pac...I disagree with you on a number of points: sure, men are more likely to commit suicide with a firearm than women, but it's not all that common among people who actually do commit suicide. Yes, the are people who jump in front of trains, jump off buildings and bridges, slit their wrists, put a gun in their mouth or temple etc. but the majority opt for more calculated and less painful methods; not having a weapon is not going to stop anyone. "Sociopaths", however, are the most dangerous people on the planet. They are, for lack of a better explanation, people without a conscience; they know what the law and society says is right and wrong but their understanding is purely on an intellectual level whith no understand whatsoever as to "why" its wrong.
@Pulsar ... nice to see you again guy![/quote]
Sociopaths are asses if they can behave then they should be able to get guns.
When it comes to mental health a turn down for a permit would be sevier depression,anxiety or a broken metal state (schizophrenia,multi persona disorder,ect,ect) I would like it to have a repeal process where you can go to a shrink and have them re-evaulte you for the all clear for the other mental disorders I dont think there should be any reason they should be premited to own a gun.
Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 16. June 2007 @ 08:50
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
19. June 2007 @ 16:24 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Sociopaths are asses if they can behave then they should be able to get guns.
Zippy, you're referring to the most dangerous of the human animals. If you make a sociopath angry, don't ever allow yourself alone with it or in a situation where they can get you. Even though you see cutting one off in traffic as a daily occurence, were you caught alone and appeared powerless or they could gain an advantage, they wouldn't care to kill you for the offense. The only care they have for social mores is how to keep from being caught when breaking them. I'll disagree with Gerry. Many of them know what is wrong on an intellectual level. They don't care about moral behavior and the idea of right and wrong as set forth by society. Sociopaths should be at the top of the list of those not allowed a firearm.
Gerry
Quote:
@Pac...I disagree with you on a number of points:
You're going to have to work harder showing them. I don't remember saying much about firearms and suicide. In some cultures a person goes quietly while in others they try to take out everyone they can as a statement. A person bent on killing will often get it done. No disagreement on sociopaths either. They're the most dangerous animal, as I mentioned. I don't see where the disagreements are unless you point them out. So far you haven't voiced one except when you implied gun ownership was wrong because inter-city gangstas were doing a lot of shooting. It's more difficult to do a drive by with a knife, but back in the day, they still got the job done.
Until the government assigns 3 cops to every home for 24 hour protection (overlapping 12 hour shifts), I think owning a gun for protection is justifiable. As often pointed out, if a person can't protect themselves, all the police do is inspect a crime scene.
|
|
