DaVinci 0 #626 August 2, 2012 QuoteReactions as indicated above show that if anybody comes with a suggestion that even hints at any sort of restriction on arms You just proved my point. You think the solution is to limit an object. JUST like the idea that the solution to stopping drunk driving is to limit cars. You ignore EVERY other option. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #627 August 2, 2012 Quote Quote Ever see a little child when faced with the possibility of losing a toy? Ever see a little child with an irrational fear of the 'monster' in the closet? Yep, they grow up to buy guns. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #628 August 2, 2012 QuoteI am surprised that you of all people would point out that the gun murder rate in Chicago has increased significantly since the GUN BAN IN CHICAGO WAS OVERTURNED IN JUNE 2010. And that Chicago had to go back to the SC since they were fighting the law tooth and nail. And that Emanual said he would do everything to try and fight it? You trying to claim that the decision in 2010 suddenly made Chicago into a city where the average person could get a carry permit or exercise a right is sad. You do know that IL is the only State that flat out forbids carry right? And you do know that Chicago is in IL, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #629 August 2, 2012 QuoteYou ignore EVERY other option. I must have missed it. What other options are you refering to? - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #630 August 2, 2012 QuoteI must have missed it. What other options are you refering to? Maybe because that is not where your focus was? I even mentioned one in the post before the one you replied to..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #631 August 2, 2012 Quote Yep, they grow up to buy guns. Wink Or they grow up being afraid of everything and try to ban things they do not understand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #632 August 2, 2012 A. Restrain your knee-jerk. I asked a fucking question. I'm sick and tired of having to explain that I'm pro-2nd amendment every time I get into one of these threads. B. I assume you are refering to this regarding solutions: QuoteWell, better reporting of people with known mental health issues would have worked in VT, Columbine, AZ and here in CO. Overall better mental health care would have maybe done something as well. I think everyone agrees. But as with anything else, the devil is in the details. Propose more stringent reporting requirements, and people will complain about privacy issues. Propose more mental health resources and people will complain about the budget. Do you have any actual ideas besides, "make things better?" - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #633 August 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteEver see a little child when faced with the possibility of losing a toy? Ever see a little child with an irrational fear of the 'monster' in the closet? Yes, it seems very similar to the irrational fear of criminals that prompts some people to shoot innocent folks coming to their front doors.... 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
kelpdiver 2 #634 August 2, 2012 Quote In doing just the briefest of searches tonight, it appears doctor patient confidentiality is NOT a constraint when a 3rd party's life is in danger (which kinda seems pretty reasonable to me) and the doctor is generally allowed to inform the intended victim and contact the police. In other words, the doctor doesn't have to listen to the patient say they're going to kill somebody and do nothing about it simply waiting for the murder to take place. Again, to me that sounds fairly reasonable. oh, there's no question of that. But this article, based on inappropriately released (and thus, of unknown accuracy) information says she had some concern and sent a query up the university chain. This is not the same as made a threat to a third party, or reported to authorities that have any input into the NICS check. Now that this is out there, the investigation will have to ask the school more about these queries and what the response was, but still have HIPPA issues. And there's the overall question of will the defense even claim insanity as a defense, or will they instead make the DA convince the jury that he was in fact the shooter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #635 August 2, 2012 >Already illegal. Your 'ideas' do nothing. Voting fraud is also illegal. Yet you have proposed new laws to try to prevent it - even though those laws will hurt only law-abiding voters, and do nothing to stop people willing to break the law. Why the double standard? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #636 August 2, 2012 QuoteAnd there's the overall question of will the defense even claim insanity as a defense, or will they instead make the DA convince the jury that he was in fact the shooter. Public defenders and defense attorneys geta tough job in a case like this. Their job is not to get their client absolved of the crime as many people think, but in reality ensure the client is treated fairly at the trial. The insanity defense has gone through a few changes since Hinkly and the standard isn't was the guy nuts, but instead, was the guy capable of knowing his actions would kill someone. I think it's fairly safe to say this guy knew he was killing people. Even if some people just want to see the world burn, it doesn't mean they get to use insanity as a defense.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #637 August 2, 2012 so if the insanity defense is off the table...does it even matter if the shrink didn't tell the world? Or do we guess that he was probably crazy enough to be marked unsuitable for gun ownership while we preclude him from using it as a defense for his criminal actions? The Cho case in Virginia seemed more straightforward - he should have been in the excluded group but wasn't due to lack of process follow through. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #638 August 2, 2012 QuoteA. Restrain your knee-jerk. I asked a fucking question. I'm sick and tired of having to explain that I'm pro-2nd amendment every time I get into one of these threads. Maybe you should read my posts before you knee-jerk reply? I explained myself, but you didn't bother to read it before you replied. If you had, you would have not needed to reply, or would have asked for a clarification if I was not clear enough. QuoteI think everyone agrees. But as with anything else, the devil is in the details. Propose more stringent reporting requirements, and people will complain about privacy issues. Propose more mental health resources and people will complain about the budget. Do you have any actual ideas besides, "make things better?" I have plenty of ideas... And none of them are any different than the laws currently on the books and ignored. If Cho's records had been reported.... He would not have been allowed to have guns and he should have been forced to attend his court 'mandated' therapy. Columbine, both kids had histories of mental health issues... Plus, they were too young to buy handguns. AZ, the shooter had a history of mental health issues and a history of drug use. Here it seems the shooter also had a history of mental health issues, and MAYBE even wrote out his plans and sent them days in advance. Now, do you have any ideas besides taking away a citizens rights? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #639 August 2, 2012 QuoteYes, it seems very similar to the irrational fear of criminals that prompts some people to shoot innocent folks coming to their front doors try and ban an object from honest citizens. Fixed it for you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #640 August 2, 2012 Quote>Already illegal. Your 'ideas' do nothing. Voting fraud is also illegal. Yet you have proposed new laws to try to prevent it - even though those laws will hurt only law-abiding voters, and do nothing to stop people willing to break the law. Why the double standard? Incorrect, it is not a double standard if I support the SAME standard. It is YOU that has the double standard. You support ID to buy a gun, but not ID to vote. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #641 August 2, 2012 as this thread drags on, all I see is "you're a douchebag!!" "no!! you're an idiot!!" "oh yeah! well you're a douchebag!!" "no I'm not you idiot!!" repeat.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #642 August 2, 2012 Quote as this thread drags on, all I see is "you're a douchebag!!" "no!! you're an idiot!!" "oh yeah! well you're a douchebag!!" "no I'm not you idiot!!" repeat. Yep. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #643 August 2, 2012 Quoteas this thread drags on, all I see is "you're a douchebag!!" "no!! you're an idiot!!" "oh yeah! well you're a douchebag!!" "no I'm not you idiot!!" repeat. you moron, I see nothing of the sort! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #644 August 2, 2012 >Incorrect, it is not a double standard if I support the SAME standard. OK. So you are OK with new laws to prevent voter fraud and new laws to prevent gun massacres? Or are you against both? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #645 August 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteYes, it seems very similar to the irrational fear of criminals that prompts some people to shoot innocent folks coming to their front doors try and ban an object from honest citizens. Fixed it for you. Umm, no. Just because you didn't get the response you wanted you spoiled a perfectly good answer to your question and added an inappropriate one.... 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
DaVinci 0 #646 August 2, 2012 Quote>Incorrect, it is not a double standard if I support the SAME standard. OK. So you are OK with new laws to prevent voter fraud and new laws to prevent gun massacres? Or are you against both? I support the SAME standard for identification for exercising rights granted in the Constitution. You can remove the right for ID to buy a gun, or require ID to vote and I would be fine with either (Personally, I think showing an ID for both is fine and a good idea). What I do not support is your double standard of requiring it for one and not the other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #647 August 2, 2012 QuoteUmm, no. Just because you didn't get the response you wanted you spoiled a perfectly good answer to your question and added an inappropriate one. Huh, that is the same thing I thought about yours. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #648 August 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteUmm, no. Just because you didn't get the response you wanted you spoiled a perfectly good answer to your question and added an inappropriate one. Huh, that is the same thing I thought about yours. Sure, but I'm correct and you're not.... 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
DaVinci 0 #649 August 2, 2012 Quote Sure, but I'm correct and you're not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #650 August 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteUmm, no. Just because you didn't get the response you wanted you spoiled a perfectly good answer to your question and added an inappropriate one. Huh, that is the same thing I thought about yours. Sure, but I'm correct and you're not. To paraphrase Pauli, he isn't even wrong!Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
