Gun Control Proposed in US House

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Is it a requirement that only solid answers are to be posted here? Is it mandatory that one has all the answers before a question is raised? I think not.

If you're hammering on somebody for not posting solutions you'll be doing a lot of hammering. I get the feeling that even if a solution WAS posted, you'd be vehemently bad-mouthing it. Well, that's not uncommon here but you get my point.

The two of them wish to gross eliminate privacy and gun rights of those they think might do something bad. Basic elements of the Bill of Rights.

I believe that such advocacy bears a high responsibility to articulate the details, and defend the reasons for it, since we're talking about preventing at best a hundred deaths a year in a population of 300 million.

And since I actually believe in civil rights, and not a subset, yes, it's going to be pretty difficult to come up with a solution that I think is suitable for the USA.

I asked some pointed, leading questions on how this policy might be worked ... these do not require degrees in psychology to answer. They're political/social questions that anyone with the proper background in our government can answer.

Quote

Sorry, your entire post is useless as it stands. Do YOU have all the answers? Do YOU have any input on a viable solution? If not, do you suggest one or do you hammer yourself?

I said it earlier - freedom isn't free. Freedom of speech means we have to put up with Nazis and other racists, Phelps and another religious nuts, as well as commies at Berkeley well before the fall of the Soviet Union. Our gun rights have considerable positives, and some negatives. Due process rights means that criminals often escape justice.

Does she answer? Nope. Just some lame misdirection about being paranoid or wanting to arm the nuts. I don't worry about the nuts nearly as I do about the false positives that would be adversely affected by such bad policy.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

1. AGAIN: Get deniers like you, Mike and Marc to admit that there is a problem.

I think everyone agrees that there is a violent crime problem, and everyone agrees that we don't want crazy people running around with firearms. So what isn't that you think people are denying?

Quote

2. Engage experts in constitutional law, criminology and psychiatry to address the problem.

If that's your answer, then you must be ok with the way things are. You must realize that just that sort of thing happens every time a gun control law is discussed.

So do you have any ideas on what you want them to do, or is your only answer "more" for a solution? If your only idea is to convene some experts, what would you say if they suggested continuing the system as is, or fewer controls? Do they only count as experts if they agree with you? If so, what should agree with you about, since all we've seen from you is calls for "more" control?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Kelp, you read like a somewhat intelligent guy but surely you don't believe that, do you? Worthless?
Have you never heard of the phrases "food for thought" or "topic for discussion"?

Gotta disagree - kallend couches his arguments in terms so vague that they can't be answered. He talks abut the laws being badly written and insufficiently enforced, then, when asked how the subject broke the letter of the law, responds that you 'value access to your toys more than the lives of innocent victims".

That's not the response of someone wanting an answer - that's the response of someone that only wants to demonize his opponent.

Quote

Is it a requirement that only solid answers are to be posted here? Is it mandatory that one has all the answers before a question is raised? I think not.

I don't think anyone is saying that's required. However, if you're claiming enough expertise to harp on the deficiency in the construction or enforcement of a law, it's reasonable to expect the person to have SOME sort of concrete suggestion for improvement.

If a loonie gets a gun quite legally, and then uses it in a shooting spree that leaves a bunch of dead people, then clearly the law is defective.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

If a loonie gets a gun quite legally, and then uses it in a shooting spree that leaves a bunch of dead people, then clearly the law is defective.

clearly the individual was defective, while the laws and the weapon operated as written and designed - so I'd start with the individual and is there a way to id that person that doesn't restrict the rights of every non-loonie, and every harmless loonie as a result

your blanket statement reflects a position that leads to a new law every time any law is broken

which law are you talking about -

the one that prohibits killing? or the ones that allowed the gun to be own by the guy? or the ones that don't commit a known loonie? or the ones that don't identify the loonie? Or the ones that restrict where he can take the gun? or the ones that allow him to buy ammo? or the ones that regulate the construction of guns? or the ones the require law enforcement to patrol the area? or the ones that.....

or should every time a crime occurs, we just add another similar law of each type - just to be safe

which one is your personal bias focusing you on? then it's an easier discussion to progress

...
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

[E.Potter 0]

[replySee what you and others keep missing is they just do not wake up one day to turn into a complete and utter homicidal maniac .

I keep saying it and it keeps going WHOOSH if you have someone in school who is exhibiting anti social behaviors... engage the professionals.. the earlier the better.

Quote

I agree !
I wonder ,considering that sometimes cops are guilty of unjustified shootings, if you would support the same type programs for all police and police candidayes as you propose for the general population?
How about for all military and recruits?

FW + UC
"Treetop" a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY

• Quote

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

If a loonie gets a gun quite legally, and then uses it in a shooting spree that leaves a bunch of dead people, then clearly the law is defective.

I think most people would agree with that. The discussion is about HOW to fix it without infringing on current constitutional rights.

From the other perspective already presented:
We have laws regarding this subject...lord how many laws we have!

I submit that it's not the lack of laws but the lack of coordinating them that causes those cracks where the crackpots sneak through.

If the crackpot has been certified as "loony", how is it that the background check doesn't pick that up?

OTOH, if he HASN'T been certified, then, like it or not, he has as much right to ownership as any of the rest of us potential crackpots.

Does this line of thought lead to what has already been mentioned - database tie-in to be more readily implemented?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

However, if you're claiming enough expertise to harp on the deficiency in the construction or enforcement of a law, it's reasonable to expect the person to have SOME sort of concrete suggestion for improvement.

Well, IMO, yes and no.
Reasonable to expect...yes, if the "harper" actually does have some expertise in the field. And no if not.

I can disagree with anything at anytime whether I have expertise in the field or not. I can ASK questions. I can throw out MY opinion. I can even throw out the hypothetical to drive conversation.

What I would hope to get back is some relevant information that would help me further develop, and even change, my opinion.

Yes, I agree with you that some people cannot or will not provide sensible feedback. Meh, to be expected, eh?

But, if you're expecting feedback from someone who is "claiming enough expertise", you have to decide for yourself whether that person actually DOES have the expertise claimed. If in your opinion he doesn't, then hammering them is non-productive and your time could be better spent elsewhere.

Those who actually have the expertise will most often provide their relevant insight. Those that don't will circumvent attempts to get them to provide insight.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

However, if you're claiming enough expertise to harp on the deficiency in the construction or enforcement of a law, it's reasonable to expect the person to have SOME sort of concrete suggestion for improvement.

Well, IMO, yes and no.
Reasonable to expect...yes, if the "harper" actually does have some expertise in the field. And no if not.

Still have to disagree, for the same reason as above. If they're claiming the expertise to say that the law or enforcement is bad, then they have enough expertise to suggest a reasonable solution.

Kindly recall, these were the same folks pounding out the 'what's YOUR solution' drumbeat on the healthcare issue.

Quote

I can disagree with anything at anytime whether I have expertise in the field or not. I can ASK questions. I can throw out MY opinion. I can even throw out the hypothetical to drive conversation.

Sure - but they're not asking questions or throwing out hypotheticals. They're blaming anyone that disagrees with their viewpoint with the deaths of innocents.

Quote

What I would hope to get back is some relevant information that would help me further develop, and even change, my opinion.

Yes, I agree with you that some people cannot or will not provide sensible feedback. Meh, to be expected, eh?

They have no interest in relevant information or discussion - all they want to do is lay blame and try to shame the opposition into silence.

Quote

But, if you're expecting feedback from someone who is "claiming enough expertise", you have to decide for yourself whether that person actually DOES have the expertise claimed. If in your opinion he doesn't, then hammering them is non-productive and your time could be better spent elsewhere.

Again, the answer is the same argument - if they're using that 'expertise' to hammer on me, then it's perfectly reasonable for me to hammer them back on the holes in their argument or point out where their 'expertise' is lacking.

And, it might just get through to someone not as blinded by ideology as they are.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[turtlespeed 221]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Kelp, you read like a somewhat intelligent guy but surely you don't believe that, do you? Worthless?
Have you never heard of the phrases "food for thought" or "topic for discussion"?

Gotta disagree - kallend couches his arguments in terms so vague that they can't be answered. He talks abut the laws being badly written and insufficiently enforced, then, when asked how the subject broke the letter of the law, responds that you 'value access to your toys more than the lives of innocent victims".

That's not the response of someone wanting an answer - that's the response of someone that only wants to demonize his opponent.

Quote

Is it a requirement that only solid answers are to be posted here? Is it mandatory that one has all the answers before a question is raised? I think not.

I don't think anyone is saying that's required. However, if you're claiming enough expertise to harp on the deficiency in the construction or enforcement of a law, it's reasonable to expect the person to have SOME sort of concrete suggestion for improvement.

If a loonie gets a gun quite legally, and then uses it in a shooting spree that leaves a bunch of dead people, then clearly the law is defective.

Then what exact language would you put in the law to make it work?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Then what exact language would you put in the law to make it work?

see... clearly you're just not admitting there's a problem.

oh shit... I was channeling kallend for a second there. That felt odd.

--
Rob

[Amazon 7]

I answered YOU did not like the answer.

Engage the experts to figure out a way to

PUT THE MUTHERFUCKING NUTS in the NCIS

Make sure those that are on that 80 degree slippery slope get fast tracked to the list so they just cant walk into a gun shop and then attend a town hall a couple months later to assasinate someone.

If others want to remove all the laws pertaining to guns.. please come out and just say so.
Please do NOT pretend that the NCIS is actually working.. ok???

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I answered YOU did not like the answer.

Engage the experts to figure out a way to

PUT THE MUTHERFUCKING NUTS in the NCIS

They do - the problem is that you and kallend want to put them in on suspicion instead of professional evaluation.

Quote

If others want to remove all the laws pertaining to guns.. please come out and just say so.

Ah, yes... the "if you don't agree with me you must want no laws at all" argument.

Quote

Please do NOT pretend that the NCIS is actually working.. ok???

You have evidence that people who have been adjudicated mentally deficient or committed to a mental institution have bought guns after a NICS approval?

By all mean, please provide names and dates so we can see how badly NICS is screwing up.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

I answered YOU did not like the answer.

Engage the experts to figure out a way to

PUT THE MUTHERFUCKING NUTS in the NCIS

They do - the problem is that you and kallend want to put them in on suspicion instead of professional evaluation.

Quote

If others want to remove all the laws pertaining to guns.. please come out and just say so.

Ah, yes... the "if you don't agree with me you must want no laws at all" argument.

Quote

Please do NOT pretend that the NCIS is actually working.. ok???

You have evidence that people who have been adjudicated mentally deficient or committed to a mental institution have bought guns after a NICS approval?

By all mean, please provide names and dates so we can see how badly NICS is screwing up.

IT was in one of the myriad of articles posted recently about the loughner case that Arizona has only submitted about 10% of the people tht HAVE BEEN jusdged to be a dager to themselves and others... they are woefully behind.

Arizona also has this... something I found while trying to find the link for the other article.
http://lcav.org/states/arizona.asp

Quote

Restoration of firearm rights: The time when a convicted felon or a person adjudicated delinquent may file for restoration of firearm rights depends on the seriousness of the offense; some felons and persons adjudicated delinquent are able to seek restoration as soon as two years after discharge from probation or imprisonment.8 In addition, in 2009, Arizona established a procedure through which a person who was found to constitute a danger to himself, herself, or others or to be persistently or acutely disabled or gravely disabled may have his or her right to possess a firearm restored.9

So there ... you can quit being paranoid now... if their rights are removed because they are a danger to themselves or to their congresscritter.. they can get better with help ( that whole treatment thing I kept up with over and over and overand keeps going WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH over yalls heads) and learn to join the rest of society with all their rights restored.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

IT was in one of the myriad of articles posted recently about the loughner case that Arizona has only submitted about 10% of the people tht HAVE BEEN jusdged to be a dager to themselves and others... they are woefully behind.

Ah...so NICS is somehow at fault for records that were never submitted to it...why am I not surprised you think that.

Quote

Arizona also has this... something I found while trying to find the link for the other article.
http://lcav.org/states/arizona.asp

Quote

Restoration of firearm rights: The time when a convicted felon or a person adjudicated delinquent may file for restoration of firearm rights depends on the seriousness of the offense; some felons and persons adjudicated delinquent are able to seek restoration as soon as two years after discharge from probation or imprisonment.8 In addition, in 2009, Arizona established a procedure through which a person who was found to constitute a danger to himself, herself, or others or to be persistently or acutely disabled or gravely disabled may have his or her right to possess a firearm restored.9

1. Deliquency isn't a banning offense.
2. Danger to self/other's isn't a banning offense - it's treatable.
3. Crimes with a year in Fed pen or 2 years in State are bans.

Once you're on NICS for a GCA '68 ban, that's it - there is no appeal process for that that I'm aware of.

Quote

( that whole treatment thing I kept up with over and over and overand keeps going WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH over yalls heads) and learn to join the rest of society with all their rights restored.

That's the part where you're wanting to illegally force them into treatment because YOU think there's something weird about them, isn't it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

• Quote

[Amazon 7]

Quote

That's the part where you're wanting to illegally force them into treatment because YOU think there's something weird about them, isn't it?

Oh REALLLLLY

Quote

The irony, says Dr. Ken Duckworth, medical director of the National Alliance of Mental Illness, is that "in Arizona a person assessing him would have had more freedom to hospitalize him than in other states."

According to Duckworth, Arizona law says people can be hospitalized against their will if they are "in need of treatment and may benefit from treatment." The standard in most other states is "acute danger to self or others," a much higher bar.

Duckworth says there is another problem here - limited access to care. Arizona has the second lowest number of psychiatric beds in the country, just 5.9 per 100,000 people, according to a 2008 study from the Treatment Advocacy Center, which advocates for the mentally ill.



From what we know so far, Loughner was never evaluated by a mental health professional, despite erratic behavior at school and with friends.


"When someone collapses in a room people know to call 911 or do CPR," says Leiberman. "But when someone has a mental disturbance, people don't know what to do."

Lieberman believes it's vital to teach family members and the public how to recognize the signs of psychotic behavior so they will know how to react and how to work with someone to get help.

As for patients' civil rights?

"The last person to have benefited from his civil rights was Loughner," says Lieberman. "His life wasn't a happy life. He wasn't getting an education or a career and now he's gotten himself into a situation where there is no prospect for the future but for prison or a mental institution."

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

That's the part where you're wanting to illegally force them into treatment because YOU think there's something weird about them, isn't it?

Oh REALLLLLY

Yeah, really - Loughner was told to get treatment if he wanted to come back to school - he didn't. QED, he didn't want treatment.

In post 8, you said "A better idea.. is to make sure a guy like Jared never had a chance to walk into the store and legally buy the Glock. If we are going to have a NICS... for heavens sake lets get people like him and Cho on the damn thing in the first place."

So, you're either wanting to illegally put people in the NICS system based on nothing more than Youtube videos, or force them into treatment - which one is it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That's the part where you're wanting to illegally force them into treatment because YOU think there's something weird about them, isn't it?

Oh REALLLLLY

Yeah, really - Loughner was told to get treatment if he wanted to come back to school - he didn't. QED, he didn't want treatment.

In post 8, you said "A better idea.. is to make sure a guy like Jared never had a chance to walk into the store and legally buy the Glock. If we are going to have a NICS... for heavens sake lets get people like him and Cho on the damn thing in the first place."

So, you're either wanting to illegally put people in the NICS system based on nothing more than Youtube videos, or force them into treatment - which one is it?

Go read the last post again.... THEY could have forced him...

If you have someone who is acting like a nutter to those around him... lets help him onto the NCIC ( fucking acronyms)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

From what we know so far, Loughner was never evaluated by a mental health professional, despite erratic behavior at school and with friends.

So what you're saying is that the problem has nothing to do with background checks, but rather the failure to imprison this guy in a mental ward.

Quote

As for patients' civil rights?

"The last person to have benefited from his civil rights was Loughner," says Lieberman. "His life wasn't a happy life. He wasn't getting an education or a career and now he's gotten himself into a situation where there is no prospect for the future but for prison or a mental institution."

How many Loughners committed shootings in 2010? How many people would you falsely subject to involuntary commitment to avoid 1 of these incidents? You do realize, I hope, that the stigma of the event will greatly impact these people. They will hard a difficult time going back to their jobs.

You seem to think I'm fixated on the gun rights bit. I'm far more concerned about the falsely committed, as well as the consequences of people being afraid to go to a shrink.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I answered YOU did not like the answer.

Engage the experts to figure out a way to

Where the fuck are these experts? Hasn't there been decades of postal workers, angry teenagers, and disgruntled fired people causing incidents where these experts could be consulted. Like I said before, Ross Perot talked about these "experts." But since they haven't actually materialized, I'm going to bet that the consequences of this knee jerk response outweigh the positives. As I suggested already, the mental health professionals don't want to scare away the people.

Quote

PUT THE MUTHERFUCKING NUTS in the NCIS

Which motherfucker nuts? You're happy to throw this out, but then you want to hide behind experts to actually define it?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

I answered YOU did not like the answer.

Engage the experts to figure out a way to

Where the fuck are these experts? Hasn't there been decades of postal workers, angry teenagers, and disgruntled fired people causing incidents where these experts could be consulted. Like I said before, Ross Perot talked about these "experts." But since they haven't actually materialized, I'm going to bet that the consequences of this knee jerk response outweigh the positives. As I suggested already, the mental health professionals don't want to scare away the people.

Quote

PUT THE MUTHERFUCKING NUTS in the NCIS

Which motherfucker nuts? You're happy to throw this out, but then you want to hide behind experts to actually define it?

DUUUUUDE that is what people spend YEARS in schools for to get the qualifications and certifications. Turn them loose, a little funding goes a very long way.
Quite taking away the funding like Arizona did. I think you will find its not just the Loghners that need help.. there are plenty of others who benefit from early diagnosis and some treatment. How many of the 34 murders on average per day are from people who are mentally unstable???

I know you and Mikee and others dont give a fuck about anything but that slippery slope yall are SO FUCKING afraid of.. you are SO willing to blabber on and on about rights. I think the victims rights take precedence.

[mnealtx 0]

You SURE you want them to be able to force people into treatment, given the anger and vitriol you pour out here daily?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

You SURE you want them to be able to force people into treatment, given the anger and vitriol you pour out here daily?

Nice try I guess that serves as snappy reparte in Mikee world

I know You sure as hell dont want them to... Why is that.. and dont trot out that red WHALE about RIGHTS.

In the last 10 years CONSEVETARDS are so far on the wrong side of supporting crap that limits peoples rights I dont know how you have the audacity to trot that out.. I really dont.

I guess as long as it waspeople YOU felt were LIBERALS or media people who did not support your goosestepping off to a conjured up war or some of those groups you hate, you see that as ok to utterly ignore rights... and somehow in your mind... is Patriotic

( I do know really... which is really sickening that so many conservatives that supported taking away so many peoples rrights can still CLAIM to be "Patriots")

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

You SURE you want them to be able to force people into treatment, given the anger and vitriol you pour out here daily?

Nice try I guess that serves as snappy reparte in Mikee world

Hey, YOU'RE the one advocating people spy on Youtube videos and using that to force people into treatment - how long before they get to conversation board posts, do you think?

Quote

I know You sure as hell dont want them to... Why is that.. and dont trot out that red WHALE about RIGHTS.

That's exactly what it's about - a violation of rights. Just because you're unable to comprehend it doesn't make it untrue.

Quote

In the last 10 years CONSEVETARDS are so far on the wrong side of supporting crap that limits peoples rights I dont know how you have the audacity to trot that out.. I really dont.

Funny - after 8 years of crying over the 'rights abuses' of GW, I would have expected you to be shouting from the rooftops in protest of this.

Oh, wait - that would mean that you were concerned about the RIGHTS you claimed were violated, not the letter behind the politician's name.

Nevermind, carry on!!

Quote

( I do know really... which is really sickening that so many conservatives that supported taking away so many peoples rrights can still CLAIM to be "Patriots")

Speaking of "Patriots"... can't seem to find you posting over and over about Obama spying on people's communications.

Oh, wait... there's a "D" behind that name - nevermind, carry on!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[david3 0]

Quote

You SURE you want them to be able to force people into treatment, given the anger and vitriol you pour out here daily?

As usual, playing the player instead of the ball.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

You SURE you want them to be able to force people into treatment, given the anger and vitriol you pour out here daily?

As usual, playing the player instead of the ball.

I learned as an instructor in the USAF that you have to teach to a common core of knowledge. In this case its the only thing the fringe right posters here can understand. I would not like to confuse the poor little dears.

I seek to use that which will get the point across to some posters who have a problem dealing with what America is supposed to be about and not some McCarthyist Heaven that they wish it to become.