News:

As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Amazon Link

Main Menu

For the lust of guns

Started by Mudwall Gatewood, October 10, 2014, 12:46:22 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

sanjuanwormhatch

Jason Carter (Grandson of Jimmy Carter), who is running for Gov. in GA as a democrat, voted yes on the recent comprehensive pro gun legislation. 

sanjuanwormhatch

I would hardly say looking at mass shooting incidents "distorts" the facts.  They are the facts.  They alone, even without black on black crime, at least merit a discussion on gun control to see if it can prevent said incidents.  In other words, if you want to distinguish mass shootings and black on black crime, fine, but both, separately, are major problems and deserve a hard looking at. 

Once you establish that, it becomes relevant to compare the lack of mass shootings in gun control countries with our incidents which is frequently how media/anti gunners phrases the argument which I'm assuming is what you mean when you say "he anti-gunners like to use incidents like Newtown and Columbine to distort the actual nature of the gun violence problem in the United States."

sanjuanwormhatch

So your stance is that mass shootings happen and we should do nothing to try to prevent them?

benben reincarnated

Quote from: steelrain202 on October 24, 2014, 12:21:17 PM
But if we can impede the rights of millions to save just one, it's justified right?

Correct.


Hello Patriot Act.

flatlander

Quote from: sanjuanwormhatch on October 24, 2014, 12:15:57 PM
So your stance is that mass shootings happen and we should do nothing to try to prevent them?

1.  Be careful what you read in Mother Jones regarding the supposed increase in mass shootings.  Kevin Drum gets a lot of that wrong.
2.  How about some restrictions on the mentally ill instead of guns--can you imagine the pushback that will bring?

sanjuanwormhatch

For the record, not once have I affiliated myself with one party or one "side".  Honestly, it's Friday and I'm really just arguing to kill time. 

sanjuanwormhatch

Quote from: Flatlander on October 24, 2014, 12:34:06 PM
Quote from: sanjuanwormhatch on October 24, 2014, 12:15:57 PM
So your stance is that mass shootings happen and we should do nothing to try to prevent them?

2.  How about some restrictions on the mentally ill instead of guns--can you imagine the pushback that will bring?
Question - do you think that we should "restrict" the mentally ill?  To what extent?  Curious. 

flatlander

#67
Quote from: sanjuanwormhatch on October 24, 2014, 12:55:27 PM
Quote from: Flatlander on October 24, 2014, 12:34:06 PM
Quote from: sanjuanwormhatch on October 24, 2014, 12:15:57 PM
So your stance is that mass shootings happen and we should do nothing to try to prevent them?

2.  How about some restrictions on the mentally ill instead of guns--can you imagine the pushback that will bring?
Question - do you think that we should "restrict" the mentally ill?  To what extent?  Curious.

You're an attorney, correct?  Just for starters...can you imagine the massive privacy implications of trying to prevent people with mental illness from obtaining guns?  What constitutes mental illness?  Should people who try to commit suicide and fail be prevented from buying a gun?  Did you know suicides comprise the majority of gun deaths? 

How about hatchets--should crazy people be prevented from buying a hatchet?  How about people who recently converted to Islam?  Oh, what fun we can have with this one...


sanjuanwormhatch

Flatlander - not sure where you're going with this.  Hell, not even sure where I'm going with this.  Let me just ask you this.  If someone is bat shit crazy by every measurable out there, a clear cut case of mental illness, do you think it would be okay for the government to restrict his or her access and possession of a gun?  We can talk about hatchets later.

Grannyknot

Flea is not the best bassist of all time.

flatlander

#71
Quote from: sanjuanwormhatch on October 24, 2014, 13:28:06 PM
Flatlander - not sure where you're going with this.  Hell, not even sure where I'm going with this.  Let me just ask you this.  If someone is bat shit crazy by every measurable out there, a clear cut case of mental illness, do you think it would be okay for the government to restrict his or her access and possession of a gun?  We can talk about hatchets later.

Absolutely, I do.  But start thinking through the process of how you define crazy.  Where do you draw the line?  The problem is that there will be so much push-back from the mental health lobby that you inevitably will be forced to define "crazy" too narrowly, weakening the laws.   So, to prevent crazy people from being offended, we'll just take everyone's rights away.

flatlander

Incidentally...the news is currently reporting a school shooting in Washington state

sanjuanwormhatch


flatlander

Quote from: sanjuanwormhatch on October 24, 2014, 14:08:04 PM
You use the DSM.

I don't know the answer to this--do people who have been diagnosed schizophrenic as defined by the DSM have that somewhere in their public records if they haven't committed any sort of crime?  Would that show up in a background check?  Does it now?  I'm thinking it doesn't.  Wouldn't the uproar over privacy be enormous?