Anti gun legislation

[xtatik]

well the "benefits" of a psych eval wouldnt be for gun ownership. (that is just an additional bonus) it would have the potential to prevent alot of tragedies such as the Virginia tech shooting, it could have preveted the AZ shooting as well. Not to mention the numerous cases of rape that occur on college campuses also have the potetial to be prevented. I dont know much about psych evals, so I dont know what exactly they reveal about the person, but I am sure that the majority of young women wouldnt mind having the warm and fuzzy of knowing that there arent as many psychos walking around their campus.

TBN, this is the most profound statement you've made.:victory:
An additional benefit would go to the afflicted who might not otherwise be aware that they needed help.

 

[greenmeanie]

... but it was a major contributing factor to the Nazis decision to forgo an invasion attempt during WWII. With impassable terrain and trained armed citizens, the casualties would have been horrific for little ground gained.
QUOTE]

Well I just lost an extended post on the Swiss military position in WWII. The above is a very simplistic view of history.

Here is a good link regrading Swiss military planning in the early part of WWII. Suffice to say they had a total force of 500,000 men of which approx 250,000 were mobilized at any one time, next to no significant armour and approx 250 aircraft which should be compared to the 3.3 million German soldiers, 600,000 axis soldierswith 3.350 tanks and 4389 aircraft the Germans massed for operation Barbarossa. Given that a 3:1 superiority in men and equipment is considered sufficient to conduct a succesful attack do the math. The terrain you cite was to be used for a final redoubt but would not sustain the population or military operations for a great length of time.

Admirable as their planning and training were the Swiss were under no illusions about the final outcome of a military action. They relied on the ideal that the Swiss financial system was of benefit to other countries and that they had no oil or other strategic resources to make them a useful strategic goal relative to the cost of invasion. Hitler never the less planned operation Tannebaum.

Ultimately the Germans chose to invade the Soviet Union and when the planned coup de main failed to occur by the winter of 1941/42 they found themselves bogged down in a war they couldn't realistically win. That is what really saved the Swiss and several other countries.

AS to the original topic of the OP I choose to remain neutral - I just hate to see history taken out of context.

 

[xtatik]

I say do nothing more than make the punishment for crime more severe.

Really? Do schizophrenics still retain enough cognizance of the law to keep themselves from harming others? Do they have the reasoning skills to understand the difference in a stiffer punishment?

That would solve 99% of the problem..

No, it wouldn't.

While we are focusing on a specific incidence, bringing overall crime down would be much more advantageous than trying to eliminate one set of factors in gun ownership.

Incidences (pl.). No doubt, the recent event got this going, but I don't think we're focused on it alone. There have been many tragic incidences involving guns and nuts.

You are always going to have someone 'snap' and do something horrific, no matter what a test says about the person. This has been demonstrated time and time again.

No, it hasn't "been demonstrated time and time again". Regarding guns, there have been no mandated or general MMPI inventory programs or formalised training course instituted for general gun ownership issues in the U.S.

People do not follow some simple little model of how our brain works. It can change, it can be damaged, it can environmentally evolve or be re-programed. You will not accurately be able to predict and manage gun ownership with a psych test, and least of all not fairly, legally, and effectively..

I understand you know little of how this works, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is something to be feared. The MMPI is updated to accomodate and compensate for all that you mention. It's much, much more sophisticated than you're able to give credit. And, it's definitely capable of revealing exactly those negative criteria that we'd eventually have to agree upon. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the NRA and some firearm mfr'rs weren't already using it for their own hiring purposes.

Guns are not the dangerous thing.....people are.

Precisely! The #1 message of the NRA......once again. Boy, we all can't get enough o' that one.
Seriously, this has been the central point of this discussion from the beginning. But, what kind of people? Criminals, right? (that's usually what comes next).

 

[Metcalf]

Really? Do schizophrenics still retain enough cognizance of the law to keep themselves from harming others? Do they have the reasoning skills to understand the difference in a stiffer punishment?

What percentage of crime is committed by schizophrenic people? I think your focusing on a specific disorder too much. Not all people who are schizophrenic are going to hurt other people. Also, who gets to define what people are at risk?<---- This is the root problem with testing people.

No, it wouldn't.

See above, What percentage of crime is commited by your schizophrenic people versus repeat offenders? ( in which harsher punishment would help with or deter )

There have been many tragic incidences involving guns and nuts.

vs what? Car accidents, natural disaster, etc. The numbers just don't add up to a significant figure. Honestly, for the oversight it would require, both in manpower and funds, it would not be worth it. I think the cold truth is that there is always going to be bad things happening. I would rather have people have easy access to a means to defend themselves than hope that this test is going to prevent crime from happening.

No, it hasn't "been demonstrated time and time again". Regarding guns, there have been no mandated or general MMPI inventory programs or formalised training course instituted for general gun ownership issues in the U.S.

Ummmm.....how many people have just woke up one day and done something stupid?!?!??!?! It happens all the time with little to no indication. The government does not have the right to define, test, and mandate it on us to determine IF we might be a danger. This would be a heavily flawed idea because it leaves the determination of said condition up to people, specifically ones in government.

I understand you know little of how this works, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is something to be feared. The MMPI is updated to accomodate and compensate for all that you mention. It's much, much more sophisticated than you're able to give credit. And, it's definitely capable of revealing exactly those negative criteria that we'd eventually have to agree upon. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the NRA and some firearm mfr'rs weren't already using it for their own hiring purposes.

'...exactly those negative criteria that we'd eventually have to agree upon'

This is what I have the problem with. PEOPLE would get to define what those criteria are. Do you honestly think that a state or federal government is capable of doing this fairly without any abuse?

P.S please don't do this.....'I understand you know little of how this works'

Precisely! The #1 message of the NRA......once again. Boy, we all can't get enough o' that one.
Seriously, this has been the central point of this discussion from the beginning. But, what kind of people? Criminals, right? (that's usually what comes next).

So what do you propose we do? Test EVERY SINGLE PERSON on the face of the planet?

There are already 90 firearms per 100 people in the USA or MORE! The only way to make a major difference in the long term is to make criminal punishment more severe to help eliminate repeat offenders. In the mean time, I hope that everyone that reads this takes pause to consider that they are responsible to have the ability to protect themselves and others. Do not depend on an overworked, underfunded, and ineffective government to provide protection for you.....

I probably won't be posting in this thread again. There are many different opinions here, I think they have been well stated. It would seem we all stand firm on our beliefs and that does make me happy.

Best wishes to everyone.

 

[LACamper]

BTW, you should go back and listent to the arguments during Heller. At one point the SC pointed out that the people should be allowed to be armed with equal small arms as the US military. This goes back to arming the people to keep the government in line. They were afraid of a strong federal government being too intrusive(can you imagine that?).

I've always wanted a M16/M40...

 

[bobcat charlie]

I've always wanted a bed mounted M2! Still have my headspace and timing gages from 'Nam!:wings:

 

[Klierslc]

Would probably be a good idea to read through the thread. I'm not ignoring them. I've stipulated what my inputs would be. One example I've used consistently here is schizophrenia. I personally don't want that guy that sits out in front of the local quick mart while talking, yelling, and making crazy gestures off into space to have the right to buy a gun. Currently, he does have that right if he hasn't gone postal to this point. But, he doesn't have the capacity to properly own one.
No one fails the test! It is an inventory of personality traits. If everyone agrees that certain personality traits or sets of personality traits that are well-defined, scientifically known and are generally agreed upon to be precursors to undesirable behavior, then the "red flag" goes up and that person is precluded, or is said to lack the legal capacity to responsibly own and manage a firearm. Another example of legal capacity would be a three year old child. It's generally agreed that a three year old lacks the legal capacity to own and operate a firearm. Most states have age limitations for the purchase of a firearm. States would say a 3 y.o. has no legal capacity to purchase and own a gun, yet the 2A has no provision for this. Now, there are also low-functioning adults that could be said to function at a 3 year olds understanding of the world. Should this adult be precluded from 2A rights?



This argument has already been presented (ad nauseum) and discussed. It is one of Mr. Leary's (the OP) original points. How are all these illegal guns entering that clandestine market when so many here want to portray gun owners as being responsible? Who are these "responsible gun owners" that lost control of their firearms? The reason is simple, every manner of idiot can by a gun. Many of these idiots didn't have to take a class in proper gun safety and storage. Many of these idiots shouldn't have 2A rights. But, how do we discern these idiots from the rest of us. We'd know who the idiots are if they couldn't pass a simple written test on those subjects. Assuming some of the idiots were to pass, at least we would have had their attention for half a day to engrain them with some good safety information and maybe, just maybe...a sense of responsibility. That same sense of responsibilty might help limit the number of guns that slip into the dark side.



Sure you can. Would you mind if your state arbitrarily decided to began allowing auto sales and offering drivers licenses to the blind, mentally retarded, clinical insane, or ten year olds "who haven't shown themselves to be dangerous"?
These people do not have legal capacity for such things because it has been wisely determined that it would not be safe. Allowing gun ownership to these same people would also be unsafe.






Dooooood, seriously. Again, asked and answered counselor.
What if a guy backs his car to the house and runs a hose from his exhaust into one of the windows?
What's to keep a guy from using a chain saw from Home Depot?
What about a guy that uses a pair of pliers to ....?
What's to keep a guy from throwing banana peels in front of old people?

Do you see where this goes? Crap, the sad thing is these things have probably all been done. But, as Mr. Leary has already pointed out, overwhelmingly, these aren't the methods of choice for "going postal".




Actually, several people in this thread have advocated precisely that. Many who haven't been quite that closed-minded, but still lean in that direction continue to drop the same arguments. Some will think they're being clever by rephrasing the same point and then regurgitating it, but it's still the same tired re-hash. Maybe the thread has reached the point where people have gotten to lazy to read it through.

Umm... I read through the thread before posting. Thanks.

If any person, schizophrenic or not, has not violated the social contract, they retain their rights. One of those is to keep and bear arms. Period.
Similarly, until they have shown themselves incapable of driving safely, senior citizens retain their drivers license. (yes I know driving is a privilege) Just because I think I know better, or you think you know better, does not mean that a person gives up their rights. What happens when the powers that be decide that YOU are not fit for ownership?

Illegal guns don't generally come from normal gun owners--gun smuggling from other countries, burglaries etc.

"many of these idiots should not have 2a rights" Really? Who are you to decide who the constitution applies to?

Really? Do schizophrenics still retain enough cognizance of the law to keep themselves from harming others? Do they have the reasoning skills to understand the difference in a stiffer punishment?



No, it wouldn't.



Incidences (pl.). No doubt, the recent event got this going, but I don't think we're focused on it alone. There have been many tragic incidences involving guns and nuts.


No, it hasn't "been demonstrated time and time again". Regarding guns, there have been no mandated or general MMPI inventory programs or formalised training course instituted for general gun ownership issues in the U.S.


I understand you know little of how this works, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is something to be feared. The MMPI is updated to accomodate and compensate for all that you mention. It's much, much more sophisticated than you're able to give credit. And, it's definitely capable of revealing exactly those negative criteria that we'd eventually have to agree upon. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the NRA and some firearm mfr'rs weren't already using it for their own hiring purposes.



Precisely! The #1 message of the NRA......once again. Boy, we all can't get enough o' that one.
Seriously, this has been the central point of this discussion from the beginning. But, what kind of people? Criminals, right? (that's usually what comes next).

You should preface most of your points with "in my opinion" unless you are willing to provide data to back your claims up.

Please tell me how making gun ownership more difficult for law abiding citizens will affect gun crime.

Really.... If you can answer that, I will concede the argument.

 

[keezer37]

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/14/massachusetts.gun.show.verdict/

Interesting read. I wonder about the individuals that would hand an Uzi to an eight year old. That's just crazy.

 

[paulj]

Illegal guns don't generally come from normal gun owners--gun smuggling from other countries, burglaries etc.
...
Please tell me how making gun ownership more difficult for law abiding citizens will affect gun crime.
....

What proportion of gun caused deaths occurred in the course of criminal activities (burglary, assault, etc), or where the victim and assailant were strangers? Those are, what most of us, would classify as criminals killing law abiding citizens. A quick view of some FBI tables leads me to believe that those cases are a quarter or less of the total. Far more occurred during arguments among acquaintances, such as domestic violence and gang rivalries.

Sometimes the distinction between a law abiding person and criminal is that the former just hasn't been provoked to the point of using the gun in anger.

 

[xtatik]

You should preface most of your points with "in my opinion" unless you are willing to provide data to back your claims up.

Please tell me how making gun ownership more difficult for law abiding citizens will affect gun crime...
Really.... If you can answer that, I will concede the argument.

I'm only going to quote this portion of your post. But, I'll tell you that every point you're attempting to make has been discussed and the question you've asked has been answered and I'm tiring of going in circles(perhaps that is the strategy).
I'm not trying to be mean, but you've asked nothing and offered nothing that would be new to this thread. You'll need to backtrack and read for yourself. It's in here.

 

[C-Fish]

There is no NEW info for this thread. It has been beaten to death for hundreds of years...Some here get it, some don't...



You either believe that Gun ownership is a right, or you don't.

You either believe that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is good or you don't.

You either believe that the people that carry daily are willing to put it all on the line for their fellow citizens or you don't.

You either believe that crime rates are reduced when the general population is armed or you don't.


Guns are not evil, people are.

If guns were to disappear, you'd being having this discussion about hammers or fish whackers...


I'm out.:victory:

 

[ColoradoBill]

OK, well, thanks for letting us all know that.:victory:

You are very welcome. It is great to debate with such an open-minded person such as you.

xtatic-“Sure you can. Would you mind if your state arbitrarily decided to began allowing auto sales and offering drivers licenses to the blind, mentally retarded, clinical insane, or ten year olds "who haven't shown themselves to be dangerous"?
These people do not have legal capacity for such things because it has been wisely determined that it would not be safe. Allowing gun ownership to these same people would also be unsafe.”

As a therapist that works with the disabled community I am a little offended by your remarks. First how can a state “arbitrarily” not give drivers licenses to these people? I agree the blind shouldn’t drive, and an age limit is appropriate. However, the mentally retarded (is a derogative term, intellectual disability or learning disability for children would be more appropriate) and the clinical insane can lead very normal lives. Both of these diagnoses have a very broad range. Some people with a mild intellectual disability can leave a very normal life. I have known many people with this disability that do have the capacity to safely handle and own firearms. Of course some do not. Are you suggesting that if someone has one of these or one of the other 295 known mental disorders should not be allowed to purchase a car, have a drivers license or own a firearm? I hope not, that would be discrimination.
It is not feasible to do a comprehensive psychological evaluation with every person that wishes to purchase a firearm; no one has to have a psyche eval to receive a drivers license or purchase a car.

 

[Klierslc]

I'm only going to quote this portion of your post. But, I'll tell you that every point you're attempting to make has been discussed and the question you've asked has been answered and I'm tiring of going in circles(perhaps that is the strategy).
I'm not trying to be mean, but you've asked nothing and offered nothing that would be new to this thread. You'll need to backtrack and read for yourself. It's in here.

So, you are conceding that restricting law abiding citizens has no effect on criminals? Well, I suppose that we are done here then...

BTW, if it had been adequately addressed, I wouldn't be bringing it up.

If the Duke of Wellington had declared victory over Napoleon before the start of Waterloo, it would not have meant that he already won. He still had to go out and fight the fight. Just because you have declared a point as given does not make it so.

 

[Scott Brady]

It comes back to reasonableness.

Gun laws in California are not reasonable.

I am also not convinced that the new concealed carry laws in Arizona are reasonable, especially since no basic training or education is involved.

As is typical, both sides of this argument in this thread are focusing on the obscure and irrelevant to make a point (a guy with no hands? schizophrenics?). That only results in endless drivel. . .

America is unique in that our forefathers specifically wanted to ensure that the citizens had an ability to launch an armed resistance against the government and to be able to protect life and property with arms. So far, I believe the supreme court has done a good job of upholding that.

As I said earlier in this thread, it is no surprise at all that the left wants to control gun ownership. It has nothing to do with a wanting to reduce crime (because they know it wont), it is because their constituency has almost no gun ownership. That presents a serious threat - no? Look at the garbage Palin put out with crosshairs on her website. The polarization and lunacy continues.

Where are the patriots? Their offspring have become ostriches. . . lambs to the slaughter. . .

 

[paulj]

What's the difference between "an armed resistance against the government", and 'Insurrections' that the Congress is required to suppress?

Section 8 - Powers to Congress
...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;