Butters 0
Recommended Posts
QuoteIf you prevent the loonies from being identified in the first place.. when its pretty fucking easy to ascertain who the problem kids are while they are school age
Strong disagreement here.
What "test" that is pretty fucking easy are you using to determine that?
Hmmmm, not accusing in any way but what if YOU didn't muster up and wound up locked away for our safety. What if it was YOUR constitutional rights that were stripped away fro being labeled a "problem child"? I think you would be screaming about the validity of the test...I know I would be.
QuoteLawrocket wants to protect them... god forbid a potential client is prevented from developing into a mass murderer that will require thousands of billable hours to defend.
Low blow and uncalled for, Jeanne.
One of the beauties of our "freedom" is that we are a diverse people. Trying to wrap everyone up into a single-thought pattern of living doesn't work well at all.
Kids do stupid shit. That's their job.
Lock them away for it? Deny them constitutional rights for it? I don't agree with that at all.
Adults might do stupid shit. Lock them away or deny rights because they "might"....I don't agree with that at all.
Just as an aside:
JFK could have qualified as a "problem child" in his school days. He was nearly expelled from Choate School in Connecticut for being a "problem child".
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
kallend 1,623
QuoteQuoteQuote[Reply] Lawrocket wants to protect them.
You're goddamned right I do. Believe it or not, I think the First, Second, Fourth, fifth, Sixth Amendments (all of them, actually) apply to those who would be considered "loonies" and those with a psychiatric diagnosis.
.
I submit that the victims of the loonies have a right not to be shot dead that trumps the rights of the loony.
As soon as you can get that Future Reader up and running we will all stand behind you.
A lame old Red Herring. Not much of a future reader is needed.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Butters 0
QuoteSeems they have a conniption about keeping guns out of the hands of loonies as well.
The whole there are laws on the books to prevent that is completely and utterly specious and they know it.
If you prevent the loonies from being identified in the first place.. when its pretty fucking easy to ascertain who the problem kids are while they are school age and perhaps actually help them to not turn into the maladjusted whackadoodles that our legal system relys on to keep all the bills paid. Lawrocket wants to protect them... god forbid a potential client is prevented from developing into a mass murderer that will require thousands of billable hours to defend.
At least the current system provides a target rich environment for everyone... the loonies get to take out the innocent unarmed ... and CCW permit holders can pray for the chance to be a hero by shooting one of them.. IF they are on hand to replace the police who most people think are actually going to pretect them.
Personally.... I think that is kinda whacked.
Blame others, make a veiled personal attack, then a trolling comment ... classic.
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
rhaig 0
Quote
I wonder if there have been any assassination attempts using a car?
I personally know 2 people who have used a car to intentionally hit a pedestrian. Not with intent to kill, but to severely injure. Neither were entirely sane. One we always knew was a little off.
--
Rob
Rob
Channman 2
http://globalgrind.com/channel/news/content/1900155/roger-ailes-amp-russell-simmons-both-sides-are-wron/
Not that this link will change anything. But I'm sure the two sides in this debate will continue to find ways to discredit the other. A house divided will not stand, thus the fate of a once great nation. Maybe, one day we can all shake hands and make up.
Now I'll return to my self imposed BANNING
Not that this link will change anything. But I'm sure the two sides in this debate will continue to find ways to discredit the other. A house divided will not stand, thus the fate of a once great nation. Maybe, one day we can all shake hands and make up.
Now I'll return to my self imposed BANNING
turtlespeed 212
QuoteQuote
I wonder if there have been any assassination attempts using a car?
I personally know 2 people who have used a car to intentionally hit a pedestrian. Not with intent to kill, but to severely injure. Neither were entirely sane. One we always knew was a little off.
You should have told Kallend - he would have had him committed.
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
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
normiss 622
"That said, in this very particular case, had the previous ban on high capacity magazines had remained in effect the shooter would not have been able to purchase one in his local gun shop. "
Not true. Depends on the DOM of the magazine.
rushmc 18
The Constitution is just an obsitcile of the liberal progrssive agenda
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
QuoteThe Constitution is just an obsitcile of the liberal progrssive agenda
At least it's still a speed bump on the road to complete socialism.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
Kennedy 0
QuoteHonestly, I don't know why the professor is so caught up with guns that he turned this into a gun thread. I've alway thought is was far more important to focus on the person, and on the crime, than on the tool used to commit the crime.
If this nutjob had killed six people and injured a dozen more with a knife, or by plowing into them with a motor vehicle, or by strapping on an explosive vest and blowing himself up, we'd be talking about the treatment he needed, the troubles in his head, and the tragedy. I don't think we'd be talking about banning knives, SUVs, or how inadequate the BATFE and bomb laws are.
I made this post about ten pages ago. I still don't get it. Does anyone disagree with my assertion that with any other tool, we wouldn't be having this conversation?
I also came up with a simple three step process for solving the problem of loonies with guns. It's even scalable to your level of comfort.
Quote(1) You have to define what a loony is. If you goal is to keep guns away from loonies, you have to define your goal before trying to find ways to reach it. The current definition by law is anyone who has been committed to a mental health facility, judged incompetent, or is suffering chemical dependency/addiction.
(2) You have to devise a way to determine who fits your definition of loony. Examples include requiring psych evals for every purchase and quarterly for owners, fixing the professor's telepathy timemachine that some mean old right-winger nutjob broke, or check the system for the definition in number 1 (NICS, the current system).
(3) You have to devise a way to keep guns away from people who have been determined by number 2 to fit your definition in number 1. Since guns are easily available, and relatively easy to make, and easily replaced by other tools, this is even more difficult that numbers 1 and 2.
So, does anyone have a good idea on how to improve step one two or three? Please, share them. For the children.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
billvon 2,400
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Does anyone disagree with my assertion that with any other tool, we
>wouldn't be having this conversation?
No, and I think that's exactly the point - and that's why all the "you can kill someone with a spoon - do you want to BAN SPOONS" arguments are so stupid.
Guns are not spoons or even knives. With a gun an untrained, incompetent crazy guy can kill five people before he can be stopped. That's why they are regulated differently than knives or spoons. Had the assailant in this case had a spoon instead of a gun, five people would not be dead.
Like you mention, keeping that gun away from that crazy is not easy or straightforward. It is worth consideration, though.
>wouldn't be having this conversation?
No, and I think that's exactly the point - and that's why all the "you can kill someone with a spoon - do you want to BAN SPOONS" arguments are so stupid.
Guns are not spoons or even knives. With a gun an untrained, incompetent crazy guy can kill five people before he can be stopped. That's why they are regulated differently than knives or spoons. Had the assailant in this case had a spoon instead of a gun, five people would not be dead.
Like you mention, keeping that gun away from that crazy is not easy or straightforward. It is worth consideration, though.
Kennedy 0
+1 to just about every one of lawrocket's posts in this thread.
Our system is based on the ideal that it is better for ten guilty men to go free rahter than have one innoccent imprisoned.* Yep, we have the worst court system in the world, except for all the others.
And let's not forget, cars kill more folks than guns year in and year out.
Hit and Run "to be famous"
...run these kids over
chappaquiddick
woman runs down mother and daughter
etc, etc, etc.
We've got to keep these weapons away from loonies and druggies! Goodness! Oh no, they're already licensed insured and regulated by government bureacrasy. What can we do?!? [/sarcasm]
* - yeah I know it doesn't always work that way, but that's the premise.
Our system is based on the ideal that it is better for ten guilty men to go free rahter than have one innoccent imprisoned.* Yep, we have the worst court system in the world, except for all the others.
And let's not forget, cars kill more folks than guns year in and year out.
Hit and Run "to be famous"
...run these kids over
chappaquiddick
woman runs down mother and daughter
etc, etc, etc.
We've got to keep these weapons away from loonies and druggies! Goodness! Oh no, they're already licensed insured and regulated by government bureacrasy. What can we do?!? [/sarcasm]
* - yeah I know it doesn't always work that way, but that's the premise.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
rushmc 18
You can kill someone with a car however
And his point stands
the tool is not the issue
unles someone has an agenda
And his point stands
the tool is not the issue
unles someone has an agenda
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Kennedy 0
FIFY
Yep. Bad folks can do bad things with lots of items. So why focus on the tool? You're a smart guy with significant education. Do you think, were you sufficiently motivated, you'd be unable to build a bomb? Do you think you could build a gun? I'll tell you, it's a lot easier than building a car.
It's an idea we can all agree on, but there are no easy methods. Personally I'd strongly support taking a lot of money away from the courts and moving it over to treatment facilities for the chemically dependant and mentally compromised. In other countries' experience, it's nearly a one to one dollar trade. But that's not a popular idea in the US right now.
QuoteCars are not spoons or even knives. With a car an untrained, incompetent crazy guy can kill five people before he can be stopped. That's why they are regulated differently than knives or spoons. Had the assailant in this case had a spoon instead of a car, five people would not be dead.
Yep. Bad folks can do bad things with lots of items. So why focus on the tool? You're a smart guy with significant education. Do you think, were you sufficiently motivated, you'd be unable to build a bomb? Do you think you could build a gun? I'll tell you, it's a lot easier than building a car.
QuoteLike you mention, keeping that gun away from that crazy is not easy or straightforward. It is worth consideration, though.
It's an idea we can all agree on, but there are no easy methods. Personally I'd strongly support taking a lot of money away from the courts and moving it over to treatment facilities for the chemically dependant and mentally compromised. In other countries' experience, it's nearly a one to one dollar trade. But that's not a popular idea in the US right now.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteIt's true that the gunman would not have fired as many rounds if he had a smaller magazine. Who knows maybe a few of the victims wouldn't have been victims if he had a smaller magazine. .
Do you understand the amout of assumptions that are being made here?
1) If he had a 10 round mag, easier to handle and use and reload, the deathtoll may have been even higher?
There's no indication he was one of those individuals that can very quickly swap magazines.
There's no indication he wasn't, either.
QuoteQuote
2) His comfort level, and self assurance with keeping people at bay with the larger mag was likely the reason that he was stopped. He simply forgot to count, and was caught off guard.
He stopped because he ran out of bullets. He would have ran out faster if the magazine had fewer in them.
And the people wouldn't have been as close, so he very possibly could have gotten a reload in.
QuoteQuote
3) The larger magazine may very well have allowed the person to gain ground as the shots were fired, perhaps slower, but for a longer time span.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Allowed who? The shooter? Yes, he was able to pretty much do as he pleased as long as he was able to fire more rounds. With fewer rounds in the magazine, he wouldn't have gotten as far.
Making the assumption that he wouldn't have gotten the reload, yes.
You're assuming just as much as you accuse others of doing.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
billvon 2,400
>You can kill someone with a car however
Yes, you can. And you can kill someone with a spoon.
However, people who use that fact to equate cars, guns and spoons are idiots.
Yes, you can. And you can kill someone with a spoon.
However, people who use that fact to equate cars, guns and spoons are idiots.
rushmc 18
Quote>You can kill someone with a car however
Yes, you can. And you can kill someone with a spoon.
However, people who use that fact to equate cars, guns and spoons are idiots.
Nicely done
However, being in denile does not make one NOT and idiot either.
I was not talking spoons
Cars was my subject. and in the context of licensing and control they are very much alike
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteI am just trying to genuinely address what was brought up-and attempt to infuse some reality to the knee jerk reaction of-"ban the object".
Understand, I've NEVER said we should ban guns in general or even handguns. That said, in this very particular case, had the previous ban on high capacity magazines had remained in effect the shooter would not have been able to purchase one in his local gun shop. It would have forced him to either find a different source, which would have slowed his plan, or do without, which, again in this particular case probably would have meant fewer bullets fired and fewer people hit by them.
As to any sort of DMV-style solutions to removing handguns from people thought to be incompetent; I'm all for that. However, as stated MANY posts ago, strict 2nd Amendment proponents would never allow such a thing since it pretty much means all gun owners would have to be de facto licensed. I'm not opposed to that at all, it's the exact same way we handle any one of a number of things; cars, airplanes, nuclear power . . . unfortunately, the strict 2nd Amendment folks have a conniption anytime the thought of a license is even mentioned so that's just not going to happen.
No problem, quade - let's do a license.
Simple rules and operation test, available down to 16 years of age if certain conditions met.
No background check.
25$ fee instead of the hundreds that it costs now.
Not needed on private property
Can carry / build any type of gun wanted
Forgot your licence? $100 administative fine instead of losing the license.
Valid and recognized in all 50 states, no ban areas.
Sounds good to me - when do we start?
Oh, btw - make sure you get your voting and free speech endorsements when you pick it up.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
billvon 2,400
>Cars was my subject. and in the context of licensing and control they are
>very much alike
OK. License all gun owners and register all guns that are taken off anyone's property. Require insurance and a safety test before giving anyone a gun. Limit what kind of guns you can use to guns that can be used safely in public. Might work.
>very much alike
OK. License all gun owners and register all guns that are taken off anyone's property. Require insurance and a safety test before giving anyone a gun. Limit what kind of guns you can use to guns that can be used safely in public. Might work.
rushmc 18
Quote>Cars was my subject. and in the context of licensing and control they are
>very much alike
OK. License all gun owners and register all guns that are taken off anyone's property. Require insurance and a safety test before giving anyone a gun. Limit what kind of guns you can use to guns that can be used safely in public. Might work.
And all that stops people from dieing from drunks, crazies and other irresponcibble people driving cars
Correct?
Works great huh
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
turtlespeed 212
Quote>Cars was my subject. and in the context of licensing and control they are
>very much alike
OK. License all gun owners and register all guns that are taken off anyone's property. Require insurance and a safety test before giving anyone a gun. Limit what kind of guns you can use to guns that can be used safely in public. Might work.
And there is the rub - all guns can be used safely in public, but the gun grabbers would be lobying for ony MAYBE one or two.
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
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
So, you're willing to give up your guns?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites