Author Topic: Gun Control?  (Read 18930 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #60 on: February 16, 2018, 04:17:00 AM »

Offline Beat LA

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7851
  • Tommy Points: 830
  • Mr. Emoji
It is disappointing to me that these situations are politized before the people who passed away are even buried. Psychotropic drugs seem to be a common denominator. Maybe itís time to take a closer look at these drugs.

http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/Another-Mass-Shooting-Potentially-Linked-to-Psychiatric-Drugs-1002085657

This response is older than all of the students who were massacred. Think about that for a moment.


Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #61 on: February 16, 2018, 04:57:02 AM »

Offline JSD

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9950
  • Tommy Points: 1122
It is disappointing to me that these situations are politized before the people who passed away are even buried. Psychotropic drugs seem to be a common denominator. Maybe itís time to take a closer look at these drugs.

http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/Another-Mass-Shooting-Potentially-Linked-to-Psychiatric-Drugs-1002085657

This response is older than all of the students who were massacred. Think about that for a moment.

What is being proposed that would have prevented this from happening exactly? What would stop someone from plowing into a bunch of people with an 18 wheeler like we've seen at these other mass attacks? The truth is, unless you are locked away in your house, wrapped in bubble wrap, you are at risk of tragically being killed.

Also, what does the age have to do with this? Are you more compassionate than me? More morally sound? Is that your point? I'm curious. What exactly am I suppose to think about?
« Last Edit: February 16, 2018, 05:04:46 AM by JSD »

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #62 on: February 16, 2018, 05:01:12 AM »

Offline JSD

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9950
  • Tommy Points: 1122
It's these snarky remarks that drive me crazy around here and I always bite.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #63 on: February 16, 2018, 05:57:44 AM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12703
  • Tommy Points: 1334
I am a veteran who owns several guns, I believe in reasonable gun control.   People with mental illness have no business having guns.  Their rights should not trump public safety.  I don't know that I think that folks should have military grade weapons like an AR-15.   Hunting is very prevalent where I grew up but here in Ohio they make you use a shotgun to take deer.

We have a law like this in Ohio.
Quote
Weapon Under Disability
Ohio weapons under disability law forbid a person from having, trying to get, carrying or using a weapon if any of the following apply:

Youíre a fugitive
Youíre being indicted for a violent crime, youíve been convicted of a violent crime or as a child you were convicted for what would be considered a violent felony if you had been an adult
Youíre being indicted or have been convicted for a drug offense, either as an adult or a child
Youíre a chronic alcoholic, drug dependent, or in danger of drug dependence
A judge has either deemed you mentally incompetent, mentally defective or mentally ill and subject to hospitalization, or you are or have been committed to a mental institution
Nearly every day in central Ohio people are charged with having weapons while under disability. Having weapons while under disability is a third degree felony punishable by up to 36 months in prison.

https://www.columbuscriminalattorney.com/weapons-crimes/weapon-under-disability/

Does MA have this?   I wonder if FLA does I doubt it.
I have a mental illness. I have participated in society without issue. I am a former business owner. I have no history of violence or anger management of any kind. Why should I be declined the use of a gun? Very few people with mental illness are homocidal. Like minute.

Having a mental illness can't be the only reason one shouldn't have a gun. It must be like the Ohio law.

Depends on the type. I wouldn't want someone who is bi-polar, schizophrenic, manic depressant, etc. to have one.
I am bipolar

I think the Ohio law would preserve your right to own unless you had been hospitalized, been deemed not competent etc...  The implication of hospitalization  being that one has been imminently suicidal, homicidal or dangerously delusional/hallucinatory.   Many, if not all (used to be a diagnostic criterion I think) people with bipolar have had a delusion episode.
The overwhelming majority of people with bipolar are non-violent (when violent, it is much more likely to be at self).  From a societal perspective, however, the likelihood of delusional thinking is a significant consideration.  I think this needs to be better understood.  I think the diagnosis of major mental illness should be part of a litmus test for gun ownership only when there are other udentified factors that actually increase the likelihood of risk. This of course just further complicates the screening process.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #64 on: February 16, 2018, 07:25:48 AM »

Offline More Banners

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3718
  • Tommy Points: 248
I am a veteran who owns several guns, I believe in reasonable gun control.   People with mental illness have no business having guns.  Their rights should not trump public safety.  I don't know that I think that folks should have military grade weapons like an AR-15.   Hunting is very prevalent where I grew up but here in Ohio they make you use a shotgun to take deer.

We have a law like this in Ohio.
Quote
Weapon Under Disability
Ohio weapons under disability law forbid a person from having, trying to get, carrying or using a weapon if any of the following apply:

Youíre a fugitive
Youíre being indicted for a violent crime, youíve been convicted of a violent crime or as a child you were convicted for what would be considered a violent felony if you had been an adult
Youíre being indicted or have been convicted for a drug offense, either as an adult or a child
Youíre a chronic alcoholic, drug dependent, or in danger of drug dependence
A judge has either deemed you mentally incompetent, mentally defective or mentally ill and subject to hospitalization, or you are or have been committed to a mental institution
Nearly every day in central Ohio people are charged with having weapons while under disability. Having weapons while under disability is a third degree felony punishable by up to 36 months in prison.

https://www.columbuscriminalattorney.com/weapons-crimes/weapon-under-disability/

Does MA have this?   I wonder if FLA does I doubt it.
I have a mental illness. I have participated in society without issue. I am a former business owner. I have no history of violence or anger management of any kind. Why should I be declined the use of a gun? Very few people with mental illness are homocidal. Like minute.

Having a mental illness can't be the only reason one shouldn't have a gun. It must be like the Ohio law.

Depends on the type. I wouldn't want someone who is bi-polar, schizophrenic, manic depressant, etc. to have one.
I am bipolar

I think the Ohio law would preserve your right to own unless you had been hospitalized, been deemed not competent etc...  The implication of hospitalization  being that one has been imminently suicidal, homicidal or dangerously delusional/hallucinatory.   Many, if not all (used to be a diagnostic criterion I think) people with bipolar have had a delusion episode.
The overwhelming majority of people with bipolar are non-violent (when violent, it is much more likely to be at self).  From a societal perspective, however, the likelihood of delusional thinking is a significant consideration.  I think this needs to be better understood.  I think the diagnosis of major mental illness should be part of a litmus test for gun ownership only when there are other udentified factors that actually increase the likelihood of risk. This of course just further complicates the screening process.

The screening process would be the problem to solve. Defining 'mental illness' for the purposes of being stripped of a constitutional right might be impossible. Everyone who sees a therapist has, at that time, a mental illness.  When, exactly, is the right to be lost, and for how long?  I think most present laws require a court determination for each individual, but that doesn't seem to be workable.

There will probably always be some folks that are on the edge, and any event in their personal lives could be the proverbial last straw. This is an individual thing.

The increased frequency of mass shootings seems like some sort of developing chorus trying to raise an alarm that society is going to crap. We are coming unbound as a society.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #65 on: February 16, 2018, 07:30:56 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34919
  • Tommy Points: -27825
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I am a veteran who owns several guns, I believe in reasonable gun control.   People with mental illness have no business having guns.  Their rights should not trump public safety.  I don't know that I think that folks should have military grade weapons like an AR-15.   Hunting is very prevalent where I grew up but here in Ohio they make you use a shotgun to take deer.

We have a law like this in Ohio.
Quote
Weapon Under Disability
Ohio weapons under disability law forbid a person from having, trying to get, carrying or using a weapon if any of the following apply:

Youíre a fugitive
Youíre being indicted for a violent crime, youíve been convicted of a violent crime or as a child you were convicted for what would be considered a violent felony if you had been an adult
Youíre being indicted or have been convicted for a drug offense, either as an adult or a child
Youíre a chronic alcoholic, drug dependent, or in danger of drug dependence
A judge has either deemed you mentally incompetent, mentally defective or mentally ill and subject to hospitalization, or you are or have been committed to a mental institution
Nearly every day in central Ohio people are charged with having weapons while under disability. Having weapons while under disability is a third degree felony punishable by up to 36 months in prison.

https://www.columbuscriminalattorney.com/weapons-crimes/weapon-under-disability/

Does MA have this?   I wonder if FLA does I doubt it.
I have a mental illness. I have participated in society without issue. I am a former business owner. I have no history of violence or anger management of any kind. Why should I be declined the use of a gun? Very few people with mental illness are homocidal. Like minute.

Having a mental illness can't be the only reason one shouldn't have a gun. It must be like the Ohio law.

Depends on the type. I wouldn't want someone who is bi-polar, schizophrenic, manic depressant, etc. to have one.
I am bipolar

I think the Ohio law would preserve your right to own unless you had been hospitalized, been deemed not competent etc...  The implication of hospitalization  being that one has been imminently suicidal, homicidal or dangerously delusional/hallucinatory.   Many, if not all (used to be a diagnostic criterion I think) people with bipolar have had a delusion episode.
The overwhelming majority of people with bipolar are non-violent (when violent, it is much more likely to be at self).  From a societal perspective, however, the likelihood of delusional thinking is a significant consideration.  I think this needs to be better understood.  I think the diagnosis of major mental illness should be part of a litmus test for gun ownership only when there are other udentified factors that actually increase the likelihood of risk. This of course just further complicates the screening process.

The screening process would be the problem to solve. Defining 'mental illness' for the purposes of being stripped of a constitutional right might be impossible. Everyone who sees a therapist has, at that time, a mental illness.  When, exactly, is the right to be lost, and for how long?  I think most present laws require a court determination for each individual, but that doesn't seem to be workable.

There will probably always be some folks that are on the edge, and any event in their personal lives could be the proverbial last straw. This is an individual thing.

The increased frequency of mass shootings seems like some sort of developing chorus trying to raise an alarm that society is going to crap. We are coming unbound as a society.

I think you can draw broad lines. People diagnosed with schizophrenia, for instance, should be barred from owning guns. Sure, some individuals can control it with meds, but overall the risk is too great.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #66 on: February 16, 2018, 08:07:29 AM »

Offline GetLucky

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1324
  • Tommy Points: 285
I am a veteran who owns several guns, I believe in reasonable gun control.   People with mental illness have no business having guns.  Their rights should not trump public safety.  I don't know that I think that folks should have military grade weapons like an AR-15.   Hunting is very prevalent where I grew up but here in Ohio they make you use a shotgun to take deer.

We have a law like this in Ohio.
Quote
Weapon Under Disability
Ohio weapons under disability law forbid a person from having, trying to get, carrying or using a weapon if any of the following apply:

You’re a fugitive
You’re being indicted for a violent crime, you’ve been convicted of a violent crime or as a child you were convicted for what would be considered a violent felony if you had been an adult
You’re being indicted or have been convicted for a drug offense, either as an adult or a child
You’re a chronic alcoholic, drug dependent, or in danger of drug dependence
A judge has either deemed you mentally incompetent, mentally defective or mentally ill and subject to hospitalization, or you are or have been committed to a mental institution
Nearly every day in central Ohio people are charged with having weapons while under disability. Having weapons while under disability is a third degree felony punishable by up to 36 months in prison.

https://www.columbuscriminalattorney.com/weapons-crimes/weapon-under-disability/

Does MA have this?   I wonder if FLA does I doubt it.
I have a mental illness. I have participated in society without issue. I am a former business owner. I have no history of violence or anger management of any kind. Why should I be declined the use of a gun? Very few people with mental illness are homocidal. Like minute.

Having a mental illness can't be the only reason one shouldn't have a gun. It must be like the Ohio law.

Depends on the type. I wouldn't want someone who is bi-polar, schizophrenic, manic depressant, etc. to have one.
I am bipolar

I think the Ohio law would preserve your right to own unless you had been hospitalized, been deemed not competent etc...  The implication of hospitalization  being that one has been imminently suicidal, homicidal or dangerously delusional/hallucinatory.   Many, if not all (used to be a diagnostic criterion I think) people with bipolar have had a delusion episode.
The overwhelming majority of people with bipolar are non-violent (when violent, it is much more likely to be at self).  From a societal perspective, however, the likelihood of delusional thinking is a significant consideration.  I think this needs to be better understood.  I think the diagnosis of major mental illness should be part of a litmus test for gun ownership only when there are other udentified factors that actually increase the likelihood of risk. This of course just further complicates the screening process.

The screening process would be the problem to solve. Defining 'mental illness' for the purposes of being stripped of a constitutional right might be impossible. Everyone who sees a therapist has, at that time, a mental illness.  When, exactly, is the right to be lost, and for how long?  I think most present laws require a court determination for each individual, but that doesn't seem to be workable.

There will probably always be some folks that are on the edge, and any event in their personal lives could be the proverbial last straw. This is an individual thing.

The increased frequency of mass shootings seems like some sort of developing chorus trying to raise an alarm that society is going to crap. We are coming unbound as a society.

I can confirm that the government's current screening for metal illness is not very nuanced. I have a friend who works in Washington. He suffers from severe depression, but he refuses to see a therapist in case he ever needs access to classified info.

That said, although I'm a 2nd Amendment supporter, something needs to change. I think some of the common sense solution Roy suggested are a good place to start.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #67 on: February 16, 2018, 08:10:46 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15879
  • Tommy Points: 1019
Quote
Police will come knocking on your door if you stockpile too much Sudafed...but shooters can stockpile multiple guns and too much ammo to use without any flags getting tripped.

Guns can be self-limiting in some ways as you can only fire two at a time and usually that is pistols and you won't be that accurate but does it matter if your fire in a massed pack of people.   Longarms can weight up to 8 lbs.  I own two pistols, one for the floors of my house and a shotgun and a muzzleloader.   I know that I can't really use them all at once.

Its the clips that guy people not the amount of the guns.  Assault weapons with big clips can be used recreationally or hunt but they were intended to kill your fellow man, and that is their real purpose.   

I am sorry to those in this thread that have mental illness.   But I can say that most people with mental illness are not violent.   I have worked in the field for 20 years and I have only been attacked once by a guy who had an impulse control disorder and in all honesty was more developmentally disabled.   The media makes all these shooters out to be mentally ill most of the time.  Its also used as a defense strategy by lawyers in many cases.

But we don't let blind people drive, and we should have limits on guns and mental illness.  Yeah, someone's rights get trampled but in both these cases it is in the interest of public safety. 


Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #68 on: February 16, 2018, 08:23:13 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34919
  • Tommy Points: -27825
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
It is disappointing to me that these situations are politized before the people who passed away are even buried. Psychotropic drugs seem to be a common denominator. Maybe itís time to take a closer look at these drugs.

http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/Another-Mass-Shooting-Potentially-Linked-to-Psychiatric-Drugs-1002085657

This response is older than all of the students who were massacred. Think about that for a moment.

What is being proposed that would have prevented this from happening exactly? What would stop someone from plowing into a bunch of people with an 18 wheeler like we've seen at these other mass attacks? The truth is, unless you are locked away in your house, wrapped in bubble wrap, you are at risk of tragically being killed.

Well, if youíre going to drive into a crowd, you at least need a license and registration , which is more than can be said about guns.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #69 on: February 16, 2018, 08:28:40 AM »

Offline jaketwice

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1368
  • Tommy Points: 102
You can see a scenario where someone without a serious mental illness could just snap. I don't see why we need assault weapons, or even handguns.

The Second Amendment is designed to prevent government tyranny. But in reality, small arms (even assault weapons) are going to have no effect against government forces. A machine gun doesn't matter against napalm or planes with missiles.

More's the point, when, in the last 50/100 years has a violent response to government tyranny resulted in the reinstitution of democracy? If you look at the places where democracy has grown, it's always grown out of peaceful protests, not violent ones.

The places where a well armed militia has fought with the government have turned into atrocity ravaged hell-holes (e.g. Congo, South Sudan, Columbia/FARC). 

The reality is that the Second Amendment is an anachronism. The guns are just used by citizens to kill other citizens. I understand "rah rah I'm a Celtics fan..."  But "rah rah I'm a Democrat," or "rah rah I'm a Republican," is just stupid. Don't take a position just because "my party believes..."

Think for yourself.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #70 on: February 16, 2018, 08:34:19 AM »

Offline Vox_Populi

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3568
  • Tommy Points: 227
It is disappointing to me that these situations are politized before the people who passed away are even buried. Psychotropic drugs seem to be a common denominator. Maybe itís time to take a closer look at these drugs.

http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/Another-Mass-Shooting-Potentially-Linked-to-Psychiatric-Drugs-1002085657

This response is older than all of the students who were massacred. Think about that for a moment.

What is being proposed that would have prevented this from happening exactly? What would stop someone from plowing into a bunch of people with an 18 wheeler like we've seen at these other mass attacks? The truth is, unless you are locked away in your house, wrapped in bubble wrap, you are at risk of tragically being killed.

Also, what does the age have to do with this? Are you more compassionate than me? More morally sound? Is that your point? I'm curious. What exactly am I suppose to think about?
Well, you can't drive a semi truck into a school hallway for starters.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #71 on: February 16, 2018, 08:53:02 AM »

Online triboy16f

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20405
  • Tommy Points: 518
The only real solution is to ban guns outright




Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #72 on: February 16, 2018, 09:21:01 AM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 41650
  • Tommy Points: 2340
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPBa3IDs3s0

Marco Rubio is almost the worst of the feckless cowards on the right, because with him, you can kind of see he knows he's wrong, but he's gonna suppress that dry heave, turn his nose, and do it anyways.

Just gross.

"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #73 on: February 16, 2018, 09:34:35 AM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3197
  • Tommy Points: 490
I would not make all guns illegal.

If I were king for a day, I would put forth the following:

Fund the development of as fool-proof and tamper-proof as reasonably possible, biometric gun safety locks.  These already exist and are getting better.  This technology should be federally supported and available to all gun manufacturers.

Mandate (with a reasonable time-frame) the phase out of manufacture of any gun without bio-metric safety locks.  Make it illegal to manufacture, sell export or import any gun without this technology.

Fund a buy-back-or-trade program for existing guns without the technology, with a reasonable time-window, after which it will be illegal to own a gun without the safety locks.

Register all guns just as we register all cars.

Require all gun owners to have a gun operators license (for which safety training is required) and liability insurance, just as we require with cars.

Yes, I understand that this is probably all fantasy and would never get enacted.

NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.
#OneCitizenOneVote - True Election Reform:  Eliminate the anti-democratic Electoral College farce now.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #74 on: February 16, 2018, 09:39:58 AM »

Offline number_n9ne

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 664
  • Tommy Points: 84
  • #StayWoke
It is disappointing to me that these situations are politized before the people who passed away are even buried. Psychotropic drugs seem to be a common denominator. Maybe itís time to take a closer look at these drugs.

http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/Another-Mass-Shooting-Potentially-Linked-to-Psychiatric-Drugs-1002085657

This response is older than all of the students who were massacred. Think about that for a moment.

What is being proposed that would have prevented this from happening exactly? What would stop someone from plowing into a bunch of people with an 18 wheeler like we've seen at these other mass attacks? The truth is, unless you are locked away in your house, wrapped in bubble wrap, you are at risk of tragically being killed.

Also, what does the age have to do with this? Are you more compassionate than me? More morally sound? Is that your point? I'm curious. What exactly am I suppose to think about?
Well, you can't drive a semi truck into a school hallway for starters.

JSD, this response is very common from the right, yet listen to the actual victims of this tragedy. Do you see the issue with it? Do you really think the victims and their families want everything to stop until their loved ones are buried, or do you think they want action? Read the article below with REAL responses from the friends and families of the victims.

Quote
ďI donít want your condolences,Ē tweeted one student at Donald Trump. ďMultiple of my fellow classmates are dead. Do something instead of sending prayers. Prayers wonít fix this. But Gun control will prevent it from happening again.Ē

source: https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/xw5a8d/stoneman-douglas-students-dont-want-your-condolences

"I don't really have an ego. I have a presence and aura about me that's very reality-based."

-Zen Master Kyrie