Yet another mass shooting

[NorrinRadd 0]

wolfriverjoe

*********Strange how most countries with gun control laws... registration, background checks, and so forth... seem to have fewer gun related deaths. Oh well. I'm sure one of these days one of these dudes will run into someone else who has a gun, and the ensuing gun fight will undoubtedly NOT cause additional deaths or injuries. Because gun fights are always such controlled, precise, and easily predicted affairs where no bystanders ever get shot.

Really?

Higher gun ownership relates to higher gun deaths?

Got anything to back that up?

Or maybe it's just the opposite:

bearingdrift.com/.../12/18/gun-ownership-and-homicide...worldwide-data

Sure! And without resorting to propaganda feeds from pro-NRA sources, either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Check the gun control policies for each of the countries.
http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-australia-japan-britain-gun-control-2013-1

Oops, Wrong link. I edited my post, but my error is still in yours (and this quote).
I was wondering why you considered the Guardian a "Pro NRA Propaganda Source."

Try this link:

http://storeyinstitute.blogspot.com/2012/12/homicides-and-gun-onwership-what.html

And your Business Insider link mentions Australia, Japan, Canada and Great Britain.

It ignores Mexico, Brazil, Italy, Jamaica and all the other countries that have very strict gun ownership rules and very high gun death rates.
OK I edited my post to reflect your change :)
Those countries you mentioned may have stricter gun control laws, but they have significantly reduced abilities to enforce those laws. Mexico, Jamaica, and Brazil have ineffective, highly corrupt police that do not enforce their laws. Hell.. northern Mexico is no longer really under government control. It is mainly a warzone that is being fought over by the government and the various cartels. Italy still has a very high level, effective organized crime that is capable of defeating the police on matters pertaining to gun control.
Gun control works... if you can enforce it.

Why drive myself crazy trying to be normal, when I am already at crazy?

[dmcoco84 4]

DanG

Quote

If you have a reasonable reason to own a fire-arm,...

In the US, a reasonable reason is, "cuz I wanna." Which is how it should be.

Quote

I just feel there should be a system in place that takes fire arms out of the hands of people who will hurt or kill others accidentally or intentionally.

The system we have right now (convicted of certain crimes and/or adjudicated mentally ill) would work just fine if we could apply it universally. That means the databases are maintained, and all purchasers have to be checked against the database.

Boom!

Quote

Those things don't always happen, and for some reason the NRA seems hell bent on keeping it that way

That's crap... the problems with the system have nothing to do with the NRA; its government incompetence. Just like the story Quade posted about the guy who killed his mother and all, yet had Tommy guns.

Government Incompetence...

As well as people that do go through the system, and are rejected... are not being prosecuted. Ridiculous!

[dmcoco84 4]

normiss

Exactly which prescription drugs will put one on said list?
Exactly which types of medical "services" will put one on said list?
Exactly which details of life events will put one on said list?

Any, once we need to silence you... says, Quade's federal panel of experts.

None of those I previously debated will ever answer this/these question(s).

[yoink 321]

dmcoco84

***Exactly which prescription drugs will put one on said list?
Exactly which types of medical "services" will put one on said list?
Exactly which details of life events will put one on said list?

Any, once we need to silence you... says, Quade's federal panel of experts.

None of those I previously debated will ever answer this/these question(s).

Because it's not something anyone here can answer - or should!.

Why do you need every answer completed in detail before you can make a decision on something in concept, and then say it like you've scored some sort of point?


Should mentally ill people be stopped from getting firearms?

Yes. If that mental illness affects judgement. We stop people with epilepsy from driving because of the increased risk to others. What's the difference?

Should people that are taking drugs that can cause hallucination or depressions be stopped from having access to firearms?

Yes. Again they're both substantially increased risk factors.

Those are CONCEPTS. The details of the exact whats and hows should be left to those with a better and less biased idea than anyone here.

[kelpdiver 2]

NorrinRadd

[
Those countries you mentioned may have stricter gun control laws, but they have significantly reduced abilities to enforce those laws. Mexico, Jamaica, and Brazil have ineffective, highly corrupt police that do not enforce their laws. Hell.. northern Mexico is no longer really under government control. It is mainly a warzone that is being fought over by the government and the various cartels. Italy still has a very high level, effective organized crime that is capable of defeating the police on matters pertaining to gun control.
Gun control works... if you can enforce it.

Seems like a lot of back pedalling here.

You might want to talk about the incredibly unsuccessful registry that Canada experimented with. Did it accomplish anything but waste money?

And then let's trendline gun crime in controlled nations over the last 20 years. I believe we'll see a gradual uptick. In the US with 'no laws' as you suggest and ever increasing sales, it's been a substantial downtick.

[kelpdiver 2]

yoink

Those are CONCEPTS. The details of the exact whats and hows should be left to those with a better and less biased idea than anyone here.

Would that be politicians or doctors? The latter are generally opposed to it, for the exact sort of reasons us "unknowledgeable and bias people" say.

The subject of civil rights is never too complicated for the people to debate. Sheep, maybe. People, no.

[rehmwa 2]

yoink

The details of the exact whats and hows should be left to those with a better and less biased idea than anyone here.

absolutely - like the democrat or republican party. both incredibly unbiased when in power......

we are so lucky such an objective crew of people and philosophies are the ones that get to write the law.



Edit: what you are missing here is that no one is really arguing about the "CONCEPTS". If you read the posts, everyone pretty much agrees with those concepts - seriously, read the content of the posts. The whole point here is that any proposed application of the limitations is not practical, and, most of the time, represents a severe departure from any reasonable solution. that's the whole freaking discussion

...
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

[NorrinRadd 0]

kelpdiver

***[
Those countries you mentioned may have stricter gun control laws, but they have significantly reduced abilities to enforce those laws. Mexico, Jamaica, and Brazil have ineffective, highly corrupt police that do not enforce their laws. Hell.. northern Mexico is no longer really under government control. It is mainly a warzone that is being fought over by the government and the various cartels. Italy still has a very high level, effective organized crime that is capable of defeating the police on matters pertaining to gun control.
Gun control works... if you can enforce it.

Seems like a lot of back pedalling here.

You might want to talk about the incredibly unsuccessful registry that Canada experimented with. Did it accomplish anything but waste money?

And then let's trendline gun crime in controlled nations over the last 20 years. I believe we'll see a gradual uptick. In the US with 'no laws' as you suggest and ever increasing sales, it's been a substantial downtick.
Sorry... back pedalling? Where do you see me back pedalling, exactly?
Yes... we got rid of long gun registry. But that does not mean we do not still exercise control at point of purchase and licensing. There is no right to own here. It is treated with much the same philosophy as being able to drive. And most of the guns our criminals get? Come from the US. So indirectly much of our gun-crimes are a result of lax US laws.

Why drive myself crazy trying to be normal, when I am already at crazy?

[normiss 635]

THAT right there is why the intricate details get sorted beforehand.

I'd hate to lose a freedom or a right based on a medicine prescribed to me for something completely unrelated to a mental issue.

[kelpdiver 2]

NorrinRadd

Sorry... back pedalling? Where do you see me back pedalling, exactly?
Yes... we got rid of long gun registry. But that does not mean we do not still exercise control at point of purchase and licensing. There is no right to own here. It is treated with much the same philosophy as being able to drive. And most of the guns our criminals get? Come from the US. So indirectly much of our gun-crimes are a result of lax US laws.

Where do all the millions of guns in the UK come from? Surely you can't blame the US for those as well?

You're back pedalling because when presented with obvious examples of failed gun control, you're insisting they don't count. Even though frankly, they represent exactly what we'd see in the US if gun ownership were banned - a nation with cops and criminals have guns.

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

Because it's not something anyone here can answer - or should!.

Why do you need every answer completed in detail before you can make a decision on something in concept, and then say it like you've scored some sort of point?

No, the concept is innocent until proven guilty; judgment based on merit and character, not emotion and/or prejudice.

Quote

Should mentally ill people be stopped from getting firearms?

Yes. If that mental illness affects judgement. We stop people with epilepsy from driving because of the increased risk to others. What's the difference?

Those laws are in place... and your example is dumb; you clearly are not in medicine.

One CAN be bipolar, taking lithium, and still have good judgement, while feeling like shit and depressed, and not want to go kill a school full of children.

Quote

Should people that are taking drugs that can cause hallucination or depressions be stopped from having access to firearms?

Yes. Again they're both substantially increased risk factors.

So then which drugs... come on, grow a pair. Quade too.

Let's see your "Complete Lives" system for mental health.

Quote

The details of the exact whats and hows should be left to those with a better and less biased idea than anyone here.

Crap.

[NorrinRadd 0]

kelpdiver

***
Sorry... back pedalling? Where do you see me back pedalling, exactly?
Yes... we got rid of long gun registry. But that does not mean we do not still exercise control at point of purchase and licensing. There is no right to own here. It is treated with much the same philosophy as being able to drive. And most of the guns our criminals get? Come from the US. So indirectly much of our gun-crimes are a result of lax US laws.

Where do all the millions of guns in the UK come from? Surely you can't blame the US for those as well?

You're back pedalling because when presented with obvious examples of failed gun control, you're insisting they don't count. Even though frankly, they represent exactly what we'd see in the US if gun ownership were banned - a nation with cops and criminals have guns.
When I referred to guns from the US, I was referring to Canada as being the market, not the UK. I am not knowledgeable enough on the illegal contraband of firearms in the UK to make any sort of guess. All I can say is that they have fewer gun related deaths than the US, and better gun control. And what I said was not a back pedal, it was an explanation of why those countries did not fit the rule. No back pedal. A back pedal is a self- contradiction. I did none of that.
If you want to compare yourself to places like Mexico, that is your right, I suppose. But The US has not lost control over its territory as far as I know.

Why drive myself crazy trying to be normal, when I am already at crazy?

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

But that does not mean we do not still exercise control at point of purchase and licensing. There is no right to own here.

And we don't care about your country; Mind Your Business!

Quote

And most of the guns our criminals get? Come from the US. So indirectly much of our gun-crimes are a result of lax US laws.

That's bull shit... same as with Mexico. Obama is a douche for saying that; same with drugs.

[kallend 1,660]

wolfriverjoe

*********Strange how most countries with gun control laws... registration, background checks, and so forth... seem to have fewer gun related deaths. Oh well. I'm sure one of these days one of these dudes will run into someone else who has a gun, and the ensuing gun fight will undoubtedly NOT cause additional deaths or injuries. Because gun fights are always such controlled, precise, and easily predicted affairs where no bystanders ever get shot.

Really?

Higher gun ownership relates to higher gun deaths?

Got anything to back that up?

Or maybe it's just the opposite:

bearingdrift.com/.../12/18/gun-ownership-and-homicide...worldwide-data

Sure! And without resorting to propaganda feeds from pro-NRA sources, either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Check the gun control policies for each of the countries.
http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-australia-japan-britain-gun-control-2013-1

Oops, Wrong link. I edited my post, but my error is still in yours (and this quote).
I was wondering why you considered the Guardian a "Pro NRA Propaganda Source."

Try this link:

http://storeyinstitute.blogspot.com/2012/12/homicides-and-gun-onwership-what.html

And your Business Insider link mentions Australia, Japan, Canada and Great Britain.

It ignores Mexico, Brazil, Italy, Jamaica and all the other countries that have very strict gun ownership rules and very high gun death rates.

Italy's homicide rate is about one quarter of that of the USA.

The USA has the highest murder rate of any western industrialized nation.

If you need to compare the US with 3rd world sh1tholes to make your point, you've lost.

...

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

[kelpdiver 2]

NorrinRadd

All I can say is that they have fewer gun related deaths than the US, and better gun control.

This is another error in thinking. You really shouldn't care about comparing gun related death rates between nations. You should be comparing murder rates by any means, since it really doesn't matter if you get shot, stabbed, or pushed in front of a train. You're still dead. But personally I think it would be a greater crime to be killed like sheep, with no meaningful means of self defense.

I think it is fair to try to restrict to '1st world nations' ... and then look at the subdivisions. There's no question America has a higher murder rate. But focusing on the guns misses the point. I believe we have a higher rate of beating people to death by hand then England has overall.

Or did - as I mentioned, these safe nations are decaying a little bit while things in the states have improved substantially. Which is a really big problem for the 'allowing gun possession leads to more murders' argument.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Because as we all know, third world countries are all run by brown people. Can't let those darkies get ahold of guns. We know what they will do with them.

[NorrinRadd 0]

dmcoco84

Quote

But that does not mean we do not still exercise control at point of purchase and licensing. There is no right to own here.

And we don't care about your country; Mind Your Business!

*** And most of the guns our criminals get? Come from the US. So indirectly much of our gun-crimes are a result of lax US laws.

That's bull shit... same as with Mexico. Obama is a douche for saying that; same with drugs.
This is my business. This is an international forum. And I know for a fact you do not speak for all Americans when you say this. I know there are plenty of people on both sides of the border who think our neighbours are just great! And we all tend to ignore the feeble rants of xenophobes like yourself. Why... I have celebrated July 1st (Canada Day) AND July 4th (your independence day) one right after the other, on both sides of the border, with the same people, both Canadian and American.
As for your other point...
We recently busted a huge gun-running ring that was bringing guns into Ontario through Detroit. So it is NOT, in fact, BS.

Why drive myself crazy trying to be normal, when I am already at crazy?

[yoink 321]

dmcoco84

Those laws are in place... and your example is dumb; you clearly are not in medicine.

One CAN be bipolar, taking lithium, and still have good judgement, while feeling like shit and depressed, and not want to go kill a school full of children.

//

So then which drugs... come on, grow a pair. Quade too.

'you're dumb, and 'grow a pair'... really? Are you even old enough to be allowed to skydive? Because you make your arguments like an 8 year old.


To clarify, I actually do have a degree in neuroscience and I know exactly how valid my example was. That STILL doesn't make me qualified to state what the possible behavioral side effects of every drug are. So why do you insist that I do?

That information already exists. It's published by the manufacturers of the drugs themselves. It's published in the BNF in the UK which pretty much every doctor carries with them. It's all over the place. The trick would be to make use of that knowledge...


Lets use the example of alcohol abuse as a stand in for a particular drug because it's something that's already regulated that we're familiar with.

In small amounts it's no problem. In larger amounts that are measurable and have been previously been defined it is illegal to operate a vehicle. In a case of alcohol abuse, judgement is hugely affected - you must have seen this at the dz?
So then hypothetically, would you have a problem with someone who is legally over the limit to operate a vehicle EVERY DAY having access to a gun?
Why would you make a distinction between one cause of cognitive impairment and another when the results can be the same?

Coming back to the real world and away from the alcohol example, some drugs have a similar effect. Some will make you temporarily woozy, some are the equivalent of being shitfaced and it differs from person to person. The trick will be to set a standard (just like the 0.08% for alcohol) that can be tested to and say 'ok - because you are on these drugs which carry a risk of delirium, confusion, depression' (or a different list to be decided by professionals who can make that judgement) you'll need to have a course of cognitive tests before the state will allow you to buy a gun - and you'll need to keep doing those tests as long as you're on the drugs. Once you're off the drugs, or if your tests are below that limit, then go for it.

I'm certain you've probably skipped all of this and are right now typing something like 'I knew you couldn't name anything, dumbass', or something equally pertinent so I'll help you out, but you're going to a throw a shit fit over the result (which is why I went to all the trouble to explain the idea of testing earlier)...


Examples:

Pretty much ANY anticholinergic drug has the potential to cause delirium and confusion. Those are great traits for a responsible gun owner, no?

Unfortunately that mechanism is common for many heart medications, antihistamines, glaucoma treatments and high blood pressure treatments. Off the top of my head, Reserpine, clonodine, lidocaine and quinidine. There will be loads more.

Just because you're taking that medication doesn't mean that you're a danger or shouldn't be allowed a gun. But it does mean that you're in a higher risk group than people who aren't... It's exactly the same as insurance for skydivers - we're more likely to get hurt than john q whuffo, so we have to pay more for the privilege. If we're too great-a-risk, we don't get approved.


Before I end, I want to point out that your initial statement is completely wrong too. You're the one being emotional and judgmental. I'm advocating measurable and quantifiable metrics... no emotion there.

[Kennedy 0]

We have objective metrics in place today(felonies, certain misdemeanors, involuntary committment, etc). So far everyone pushing for more control are offering subjective ideas. If you want to talk about laws created by lawyers, doctors, shrinks, providers, and other such professionals, guess what, that's what is in place today.

When you have a better definition of "nutter" than is in place, let me know. Until then, you're whining about a system put in place with the help of the best we can find. If you don't like where the line is drawn, you need to suggest where it should be instead. Keep in mind the fact that this country believes in protecting rights first and foremost.

So come on, give us a definition of nutter that doesn't use prior bad acts that would otherwise lead to disqualification. Show me where you would put the line. If all you can say is "ask the professionals", then you need to understand you're asking for the system that's already in place.

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

[dmcoco84 4]

I am continually astounded by the deficiency of reading comprehension skills displayed on this forum; currently in this thread, worse in my fracking thread.

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

'you're dumb, and 'grow a pair'... really? Are you even old enough to be allowed to skydive? Because you make your arguments like an 8 year old.

As stated in my fracking thread, I don't have time to respond as desired, but I will in a day or two.

However, I will start with and say this:

YOU ARE dumb... FOR, misquoting me, with you're instead of your, when I criticized your example, NOT YOU PERSONALLY... which IS a DUMB example, when trying to compare it to confiscation of firearms.

I'm a Paramedic... your example is nonsensical in this context.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Pretty much ANY anticholinergic drug has the potential to cause delirium and confusion. Those are great traits for a responsible gun owner, no?

And if you think a drug should remove a citizens right to own a firearm.... Wild you also use that same reason to remove their right to drive or skydive?

[DaVinci 0]

Better ban matches:

'Fire rescue crews were first called to the scene, where Vargas had lit his apartment on fire'

[kallend 1,660]

DaVinci

Quote

Pretty much ANY anticholinergic drug has the potential to cause delirium and confusion. Those are great traits for a responsible gun owner, no?

And if you think a drug should remove a citizens right to own a firearm.... Wild you also use that same reason to remove their right to drive or skydive?

Or pilot an airliner?

...

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

[Kennedy 0]

kallend

***

Quote

Pretty much ANY anticholinergic drug has the potential to cause delirium and confusion. Those are great traits for a responsible gun owner, no?

And if you think a drug should remove a citizens right to own a firearm.... Wild you also use that same reason to remove their right to drive or skydive?

Or pilot an airliner?

Ah ah ah, professor. Commercial operators carrying people or cargo are subjected to more stringent controls, whether you're talking wings or wheels. We're talking about citizens and private activities. (private as in not public or commercial; not implying for out of public view). If you want to use private pilots in their own planes, your analogy might have some bearing.

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