kallend 2,027 #26 April 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteMost Don't Believe Stricter Gun Control Policies Will Prevent Mass Shootings Well, it hasn't yet, has it? Ciels- Michele How do you know how many have NOT happened?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #27 April 26, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Most Don't Believe Stricter Gun Control Policies Will Prevent Mass Shootings Well, it hasn't yet, has it? I don't know. There hasn't been a mass shooting in England since they passed theirs, has there? Say what you want about increased violence, etc., if you're looking for an effect on mass shootings, you've got one. How frequent were the mass shootings before the English lost their guns? Isn't one too many? It took no more than a minute to find two: one in 1987, another in 1996. They passed the firearms bill in 1997. How many in the USA since 1987? How many before 1969, barring Whitmore? Whitman? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #28 April 26, 2007 regarding the VA tech massacre: The guy PLANNED this whole thing, & made a video of himself "explaining" it. When you consider 1) How totally f&*ked up this guy was and 2) How DETERMINED he was... There can be NO DOUBT that if there were stricter gun laws in place, he would most certainly have obtained his guns anyway, but just gone to an illegal source to get them. The result would have been absolutely the same. A guy this determined & crazy is not going to be stopped by a few regulations. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #29 April 26, 2007 Quoteregarding the VA tech massacre: The guy PLANNED this whole thing, & made a video of himself "explaining" it. When you consider 1) How totally f&*ked up this guy was and 2) How DETERMINED he was... There can be NO DOUBT that if there were stricter gun laws in place, he would most certainly have obtained his guns anyway, but just gone to an illegal source to get them. The result would have been absolutely the same. A guy this determined & crazy is not going to be stopped by a few regulations. And a terrorist determined to kill people will also not be deterred. That's not to say that you make it easy for them.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #30 April 26, 2007 QuoteThat's not to say that you make it easy for them. So you're in favor of concealed carry at schools by properly licensed individuals, then?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #31 April 26, 2007 QuoteSo you're in favor of concealed carry at schools by properly licensed individuals, then? The predetermined response to this is as follows: "are you crazy? I do not support giving every freshman a handgun as part of orientation" didn't you get the memo? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #32 April 26, 2007 QuoteThere hasn't been a mass shooting in England since they passed theirs, I think that is because all the sheep stayed home ... all those who wanted the freedom to NOT be sheep left. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #33 April 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteThat's not to say that you make it easy for them. So you're in favor of concealed carry at schools by properly licensed individuals, then? The problem here is we seem to have gotten to a stalemate over this, but the reality is we're talking about two completely different things. I would not have an issue with a properly trained in urban combat and police tactics person carrying a concealed weapon. I do not think average CCW meets that requirement however. I do think it's pretty obvious though that we certainly should keep guns out of the hands of KNOWN mentally unstable people. YOU wouldn't sell a gun to anyone you knew to be mentally impaired would you? (Would you?!?)quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #34 April 26, 2007 QuoteYou infer too much. Making the leap from "last weeks' bloodshed" to "mass shootings" (plural) is both misleading and unwarranted by any evidence that you presented. So you don't consider last week's Virginia Tech shooting to be a "mass shooting"? Golly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #35 April 26, 2007 QuoteThere hasn't been a mass shooting in England since they passed theirs, has there? Say what you want about increased violence, etc., if you're looking for an effect on mass shootings, you've got one. Such events were exceptionally rare to begin with. Just because one hasn't happened again, yet, doesn't mean that the gun ban legislation was effective at preventing it. You can't presume or prove any correlation between these two events. The fact is, there is still plenty of gun crime in England. And any nut that wanted to shoot up a school full of children could still do it. Anyone who believes otherwise, is naive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #36 April 26, 2007 YOU wouldn't sell a gun to anyone you knew to be mentally impaired would you? (Would you?!?) How, exactly, would that determination be made? By the gun-seller's observation? Medical records (I hope not)? There are lots of people who are "mentally impaired" who pose no threat to themselves or others. Should those people lose their right to own a gun? I would hope that a gun seller would not sell a gun to someone he/she did not feel comfortable selling it to. I'm not sure that they have that luxury, though...but I don't know the answer to that. Otherwise, since medical records are protected by privacy laws, and most people selling guns don't usually have certification as a mental health professional, background checks are probably the best we have. I suppose we could make everyone pass a mental health evaluation before purchasing a gun, but then we'd have NAMI up in arms....would that qualify as "irony" for an organization that would tend toward the liberal side to fight for the right of mentally ill individuals to own guns? (Heh...) linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #37 April 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteSo, are you willing to sacrifice doctor-patient privacy for the sake of a new gun control law that won't work? So, John, lemme get this straight . . . You would not be in favor of a law that would prohibit the sale of guns to people with mental deficiencies? Does that about sum it up? In fact, you're actually saying that you're in favor of selling guns to persons known to be at risk to themselves and the public at large; correct? I just want to be clear on this, this is what you're saying, if a person is KNOWN to be a violent, mentally unstable person, they still have the right to buy a gun? I don't really care one way or the other. But a lot of people do. I would think that if this kind of reporting of psychiatric visits to the no-gun database were to occur, it should only be for those who are showing signs of violence. Routine psychiatric care should not be reported. If they are "known" to be violent or mentally unstable, then they should have a criminal record already, or a judicial ruling on mental fitness, and already be exempt from gun purchase by the existing laws. Opening up this kind of denial of rights for minor psychological problems is a nasty can of worms. Should a single doctor of psychiatry have the power to do that too you? Just look at how much these doctors disagree with each other about a suspect's mental health in court cases now. And if you're going to do it for psychiatric doctor visits. What about patients diagnosed with terminal illnesses? Should we presume they might be prone to suicide, and put them on the no-gun database? What about people going through divorces? There is a slippery slope here, and I fear where it will lead. Shotgun's message #38 below, sums it up nicely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #38 April 26, 2007 QuoteI do think it's pretty obvious though that we certainly should keep guns out of the hands of KNOWN mentally unstable people. How would you define "known mentally unstable people"? Anyone who has ever been diagnosed with a mental disorder (depression, anxiety, drug abuse, etc.)? Or only those who have been declared by a judge to be a potential harm to themselves or others? If it's the latter, I'd probably agree, but I don't think it's a good idea to have ALL mental health records available for background checks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #39 April 26, 2007 Quote I would hope that a gun seller would not sell a gun to someone he/she did not feel comfortable selling it to. I'm not sure that they have that luxury, though... They don't have to sell to anyone they don't feel comfortable selling to, and I've seen people refuse quite a few times. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #40 April 26, 2007 Quote"Most Don't Believe Stricter Gun Control Policies Will Prevent Mass Shootings" Michelle: Well, it hasn't yet, has it? kallend: How do you know how many have NOT happened? Enlighten us, kallend - tell us how many have not happened. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #41 April 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteI do think it's pretty obvious though that we certainly should keep guns out of the hands of KNOWN mentally unstable people. How would you define "known mentally unstable people"? Anyone who has ever been diagnosed with a mental disorder (depression, anxiety, drug abuse, etc.)? Or only those who have been declared by a judge to be a potential harm to themselves or others? If it's the latter, I'd probably agree, but I don't think it's a good idea to have ALL mental health records available for background checks. I'd probably be satisfied if the people that bought guns had to be at least as mentally stable as the people that pilot aircraft. For references there see; http://flightphysical.com/part67/Class3/67subd_67307.htm These are the minimum requirements for a Private Pilot Certificate, not commercial, not air transport . . . a 3rd Class Medical which just about any "normal" human can get as long as they have a regular pulse. So . . . we're not exactly talking Superman here. Although it would probably exclude a number of people in this thread.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #42 April 26, 2007 QuoteI'd probably be satisfied if the people that bought guns had to be at least as mentally stable as the people that pilot aircraft. For references there see; http://flightphysical.com/part67/Class3/67subd_67307.htm Are you suggesting that everyone who wants to buy a gun should get a doctor's signature first? And is the 3rd Class Medical any different than a normal physical that you'd get from a doctor? I ask because all a person has to do for that is to go to someone other than their normal doctor, and no mental health information will have to be reported on there since that information is typically not shared (in which case there wouldn't be much point since the person could lie about their mental health history). Also, what about the person who is diagnosed with a mental illness after they own a gun? Should the doctor who made the diagnosis have to search a database to see if their patient owns a gun, and then have someone confiscate it? I don't know... I agree that (dangerous) mentally ill people should not have guns, but I don't see any easy solution to that without invading the privacy of a lot of others (and discouraging people from voluntarily seeking mental health treatment). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #43 April 26, 2007 QuoteAre you suggesting that everyone who wants to buy a gun should get a doctor's signature first? I'm suggesting that it should be at least as regulated as any one of a number other potentially dangrous things that require some form of licensing. If that means jumping through a few hoops, -I- don't see what the issue is. (Looking into the FutureCam™ . . . now, John is immediately going to go on a rampage about how guns are already the most regulated thing on the planet (which is incorrect BTW) and that licensing would be an abridgment of the 2nd, but -I- don't see it that way at all. Just a difference of opinion.)quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #44 April 26, 2007 Our position on this is crystal clear: If you are adjudicated by a court to be mentally defective, suicidal, a danger to yourself or to others, you should be prohibited from buying a firearm ~ Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President, NRA. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18298126/site/newsweek/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #45 April 26, 2007 QuoteOur position on this is crystal clear: If you are adjudicated by a court to be mentally defective, suicidal, a danger to yourself or to others, you should be prohibited from buying a firearm ~ Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President, NRA. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18298126/site/newsweek/ Which is what struck me as so "odd" about John's position on the subject.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #46 April 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteOur position on this is crystal clear: If you are adjudicated by a court to be mentally defective, suicidal, a danger to yourself or to others, you should be prohibited from buying a firearm ~ Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President, NRA. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18298126/site/newsweek/ Which is what struck me as so "odd" about John's position on the subject. "adjudicated by a court" is a LOT different than rifling through private counseling records..... What's "odd" is "choosing" not to see the difference. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #47 April 26, 2007 Quote"adjudicated by a court" is a LOT different than rifling through private counseling records..... Lapierre nonetheless says the group is now working with longtime ally Rep. John Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, on a bill to ensure that mental-health records are entered into a FBI database that is used for background checks of gun buyers. From the same article. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #48 April 26, 2007 QuoteAre you suggesting that everyone who wants to buy a gun should get a doctor's signature first? Come to think of it, why not? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #49 April 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteAre you suggesting that everyone who wants to buy a gun should get a doctor's signature first? Come to think of it, why not? As I pointed out right after that sentence, there probably wouldn't be much point to it. Just go to a doctor who has never seen you before, lie about your mental health history, and you're good to go (well, unless you're acting like a nutcase while trying to get this doc's signature). That would only work if mental health records were more accessible, but then we're back to invading people's privacy and discouraging people from seeking mental health treatment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #50 April 26, 2007 So your position is that there should be no law if that law can be circunvented in some way. That pretty much leave us with anarchy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
