Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[Pogo]

That is it in a nutshell. Liberals like Joe and Candy are convinced that the solution to mass shootings is taking guns away from people who aren't shooting anyone. They can't explain it, they don't have an argument for it other than just assuming it's true. But they believe it as strongly as water is wet.

I heard an interesting commentary on this debate a few days ago that I found had merit. The common denominator in all these mass shootings is not guns. The commonality in all these mass shootings is a PERSON with a history of mental issues. Lanza, Loughner, etc. All were screwed up in the head. So was the gal who went on a rampage with here car in DC recently. You'll notice the media isn't covering this and people like Joe aren't screaming for the ban of cars. Same type of situation, she just used a car instead of a gun. Anyway, way back in the day it used to be legal to commit people involuntarily to a mental health care facility. I believe it was Kennedy that made that illegal, so now people can only voluntarily commit themselves. That needs to be the national focus. What do we do with these people with sever mental illness that are a danger to themselves and society? No one seems to want to talk about that.

It's a good point, but a tricky issue. Most people with issues don't start shooting people. Another issue is that if you start locking people up for what they say in large enough numbers, they will hear that's happening and refuse to talk to mental health providers. In the end, we're talking about people taking away someone else's freedom based on a perceived threat. Doesn't that scare you as well?

Who is?

 

[kaz]

I heard an interesting commentary on this debate a few days ago that I found had merit. The common denominator in all these mass shootings is not guns. The commonality in all these mass shootings is a PERSON with a history of mental issues. Lanza, Loughner, etc. All were screwed up in the head. So was the gal who went on a rampage with here car in DC recently. You'll notice the media isn't covering this and people like Joe aren't screaming for the ban of cars. Same type of situation, she just used a car instead of a gun. Anyway, way back in the day it used to be legal to commit people involuntarily to a mental health care facility. I believe it was Kennedy that made that illegal, so now people can only voluntarily commit themselves. That needs to be the national focus. What do we do with these people with sever mental illness that are a danger to themselves and society? No one seems to want to talk about that.

It's a good point, but a tricky issue. Most people with issues don't start shooting people. Another issue is that if you start locking people up for what they say in large enough numbers, they will hear that's happening and refuse to talk to mental health providers. In the end, we're talking about people taking away someone else's freedom based on a perceived threat. Doesn't that scare you as well?

Who is?

Sorry dude, my bad. I thought you were reading the posts in the discussion you and Bern were having.

 

[Pogo]

It's a good point, but a tricky issue. Most people with issues don't start shooting people. Another issue is that if you start locking people up for what they say in large enough numbers, they will hear that's happening and refuse to talk to mental health providers. In the end, we're talking about people taking away someone else's freedom based on a perceived threat. Doesn't that scare you as well?

Who is?

Sorry dude, my bad. I thought you were reading the posts in the discussion you and Bern were having.

How could I be in the discussion without reading it? Doesn't this violate some law of physics?

 

[Spoonman]

Who is?

Sorry dude, my bad. I thought you were reading the posts in the discussion you and Bern were having.

How could I be in the discussion without reading it? Doesn't this violate some law of physics?

was any matter created or destroyed? if not i'm thinking it probably doesn't

 

[Pogo]

I wouldn't go so far as to say we have a gun fetish. To me that's something people say when someone like me gets adamant about being allowed to have one. But that doesn't constitute a fetish. While I have a few guns, I'm not enamored with guns. I don't even think the Loughners and Lanza's of the world are enamored with guns. I think they were enamored with hurting people. I would grant you that their mental condition probably left them more suscieptible and influenced by media portrayal of them.

Uhh.... hello? Look around you...


Btw AFAIK neither Loughner nor Lanza (nor Holmes, Klebold, etc etc etc) had a history of "hurting people". What was much more in their history is a feeling of powerlessness. There's a clue right there.

I don't think I said 'history of hurting people'. I think I said history of mental issues. And The people around me? Like in this thread? Those defending the right to have guns I dont' see as too different from me. I can only speak for myself, but I don't spend great periods of time with 'guns and violence on the brain' so to speak. Most of the time I don't think about them. I don't even obsess over them when using them (for hunting mainly). I think a major component of this debate that gets glossed over is perception. This is really only my opinion, but I think people opinions about guns are shaped by their experience with them. If all you know about guns is what you see in the news and media as portrayed as you describe above, I can see how someone would have a negative opinion of them. That doesn't make the opinion correct. I, on the other hand, grew up in northern Minnesota, hunting as soon as I was legally allowed. I grew up in rural neighborhood, but most people in the neighborhood hunted, so I would guess growing up there were several hundred guns within a square mile of where I lived in private hands. Yet no one ever died from one or was even shot by one or even threatened by one that I'm aware of. None of the people I grew up hunting with seemed overly infatuated with their guns. Rather they're treated simply as a tool. Granted a tool to be treated responsibly, but to me saying people who want defend the right to bear arms have a gun fetish is kind of like saying a home builder has a hammer fetish. I get why some may think their is an obsession because when the conversation comes up about banning them or heavily regulation of course I and a lot of people start getting pretty adamant about being able to keep them.

I think you said "enamored with" hurting people, and I'm pointing out that's not in their history. And just to clean up another loose end, where you mentioned Kennedy earlier I believe you're thinking of that other Irish President twenty years later.

The "people around us" means not necessarily in this thread (I don't know what the whole population is) but when you've got posters on the board naming themselves after guns, using them in their avatars, posting invitations to gun shows and generally jumping in to promote gun worship at every shred of an opportunity, then yeah I'd say that's a fetish. You don't see people doing that with computers or clothes or cars.

This will have to be rhetorical because it would be impractical to do, but try making a list of movies that don't have some kind of gunplay in them. Then compare that to the frequency with which we see such gunplay in real life. We're obsessed. And by "we" I don't mean you or this or that poster who's posting about the Second Amendment; I mean "we" as a culture. We have elevated (i.e. somebody has elevated) Almighty Gun to some sort of godlike status.

 

[kaz]

The "people around us" means not necessarily in this thread (I don't know what the whole population is) but when you've got posters on the board naming themselves after guns, using them in their avatars, posting invitations to gun shows and generally jumping in to promote gun worship at every shred of an opportunity, then yeah I'd say that's a fetish.

And by your standard, as I pointed out, the desire for other people's money is a fetish for Democrats...

 

[Pogo]

The "people around us" means not necessarily in this thread (I don't know what the whole population is) but when you've got posters on the board naming themselves after guns, using them in their avatars, posting invitations to gun shows and generally jumping in to promote gun worship at every shred of an opportunity, then yeah I'd say that's a fetish.

And by your standard, as I pointed out, the desire for other people's money is a fetish for Democrats...

None of the above is in any way connected to money, or to Democrats or any other political party -- or for that matter to politics at all.

Well, not unless you include the NRA, then it's connected to money (and tangentially politics) but that's not the point.

 

[Bern80]

That is it in a nutshell. Liberals like Joe and Candy are convinced that the solution to mass shootings is taking guns away from people who aren't shooting anyone. They can't explain it, they don't have an argument for it other than just assuming it's true. But they believe it as strongly as water is wet.

I heard an interesting commentary on this debate a few days ago that I found had merit. The common denominator in all these mass shootings is not guns. The commonality in all these mass shootings is a PERSON with a history of mental issues. Lanza, Loughner, etc. All were screwed up in the head. So was the gal who went on a rampage with here car in DC recently. You'll notice the media isn't covering this and people like Joe aren't screaming for the ban of cars. Same type of situation, she just used a car instead of a gun. Anyway, way back in the day it used to be legal to commit people involuntarily to a mental health care facility. I believe it was Kennedy that made that illegal, so now people can only voluntarily commit themselves. That needs to be the national focus. What do we do with these people with sever mental illness that are a danger to themselves and society? No one seems to want to talk about that.

It's a good point, but a tricky issue. Most people with issues don't start shooting people. Another issue is that if you start locking people up for what they say in large enough numbers, they will hear that's happening and refuse to talk to mental health providers. In the end, we're talking about people taking away someone else's freedom based on a perceived threat. Doesn't that scare you as well?

Yes it does. There's the obvious 4th amendment issues. There would have to be an independent system in place for determining a person's threat to society. Believe me, I get the ramifications. But it was allowed for several decades before it was disallowed.

 

[Bern80]

Uhh.... hello? Look around you...


Btw AFAIK neither Loughner nor Lanza (nor Holmes, Klebold, etc etc etc) had a history of "hurting people". What was much more in their history is a feeling of powerlessness. There's a clue right there.

I don't think I said 'history of hurting people'. I think I said history of mental issues. And The people around me? Like in this thread? Those defending the right to have guns I dont' see as too different from me. I can only speak for myself, but I don't spend great periods of time with 'guns and violence on the brain' so to speak. Most of the time I don't think about them. I don't even obsess over them when using them (for hunting mainly). I think a major component of this debate that gets glossed over is perception. This is really only my opinion, but I think people opinions about guns are shaped by their experience with them. If all you know about guns is what you see in the news and media as portrayed as you describe above, I can see how someone would have a negative opinion of them. That doesn't make the opinion correct. I, on the other hand, grew up in northern Minnesota, hunting as soon as I was legally allowed. I grew up in rural neighborhood, but most people in the neighborhood hunted, so I would guess growing up there were several hundred guns within a square mile of where I lived in private hands. Yet no one ever died from one or was even shot by one or even threatened by one that I'm aware of. None of the people I grew up hunting with seemed overly infatuated with their guns. Rather they're treated simply as a tool. Granted a tool to be treated responsibly, but to me saying people who want defend the right to bear arms have a gun fetish is kind of like saying a home builder has a hammer fetish. I get why some may think their is an obsession because when the conversation comes up about banning them or heavily regulation of course I and a lot of people start getting pretty adamant about being able to keep them.

I think you said "enamored with" hurting people, and I'm pointing out that's not in their history. And just to clean up another loose end, where you mentioned Kennedy earlier I believe you're thinking of that other Irish President twenty years later.

The "people around us" means not necessarily in this thread (I don't know what the whole population is) but when you've got posters on the board naming themselves after guns, using them in their avatars, posting invitations to gun shows and generally jumping in to promote gun worship at every shred of an opportunity, then yeah I'd say that's a fetish. You don't see people doing that with computers or clothes or cars.

This will have to be rhetorical because it would be impractical to do, but try making a list of movies that don't have some kind of gunplay in them. Then compare that to the frequency with which we see such gunplay in real life. We're obsessed. And by "we" I don't mean you or this or that poster who's posting about the Second Amendment; I mean "we" as a culture. We have elevated (i.e. somebody has elevated) Almighty Gun to some sort of godlike status.

It's possible. Or are we just obsessed with violence? What if guns were never invented? Do think the obsession would be with swordplay in movies? I don't. I don't envision a bunch of people waiting impatiently for the gun part in movies or fast forwarding to them. That's what I picture when people say obsessed. I think the reality is we may be obsessed with make believe violence. If guns weren't the vehicle for it, it would be something else.

 

[Pogo]

I don't think I said 'history of hurting people'. I think I said history of mental issues. And The people around me? Like in this thread? Those defending the right to have guns I dont' see as too different from me. I can only speak for myself, but I don't spend great periods of time with 'guns and violence on the brain' so to speak. Most of the time I don't think about them. I don't even obsess over them when using them (for hunting mainly). I think a major component of this debate that gets glossed over is perception. This is really only my opinion, but I think people opinions about guns are shaped by their experience with them. If all you know about guns is what you see in the news and media as portrayed as you describe above, I can see how someone would have a negative opinion of them. That doesn't make the opinion correct. I, on the other hand, grew up in northern Minnesota, hunting as soon as I was legally allowed. I grew up in rural neighborhood, but most people in the neighborhood hunted, so I would guess growing up there were several hundred guns within a square mile of where I lived in private hands. Yet no one ever died from one or was even shot by one or even threatened by one that I'm aware of. None of the people I grew up hunting with seemed overly infatuated with their guns. Rather they're treated simply as a tool. Granted a tool to be treated responsibly, but to me saying people who want defend the right to bear arms have a gun fetish is kind of like saying a home builder has a hammer fetish. I get why some may think their is an obsession because when the conversation comes up about banning them or heavily regulation of course I and a lot of people start getting pretty adamant about being able to keep them.

I think you said "enamored with" hurting people, and I'm pointing out that's not in their history. And just to clean up another loose end, where you mentioned Kennedy earlier I believe you're thinking of that other Irish President twenty years later.

The "people around us" means not necessarily in this thread (I don't know what the whole population is) but when you've got posters on the board naming themselves after guns, using them in their avatars, posting invitations to gun shows and generally jumping in to promote gun worship at every shred of an opportunity, then yeah I'd say that's a fetish. You don't see people doing that with computers or clothes or cars.

This will have to be rhetorical because it would be impractical to do, but try making a list of movies that don't have some kind of gunplay in them. Then compare that to the frequency with which we see such gunplay in real life. We're obsessed. And by "we" I don't mean you or this or that poster who's posting about the Second Amendment; I mean "we" as a culture. We have elevated (i.e. somebody has elevated) Almighty Gun to some sort of godlike status.

It's possible. Or are we just obsessed with violence? What if guns were never invented? Do think the obsession would be with swordplay in movies? I don't. I don't envision a bunch of people waiting impatiently for the gun part in movies or fast forwarding to them. That's what I picture when people say obsessed. I think the reality is we may be obsessed with make believe violence. If guns weren't the vehicle for it, it would be something else.

Yes, absolutely -- we are obsessed with violence, that's the basis underlying the gun fetish. And no doubt, if guns did not exist it would be some other technology front and center. That's why I define this as a cultural value. A culture that has precious little respect for Life, and that's where it starts.

I don't envision a bunch of people waiting impatiently for the gun part in movies or fast forwarding to them.

I believe that's porno.
Not that it's a great deal of difference; gunplay in pop culture is in effect gun-porn.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I heard an interesting commentary on this debate a few days ago that I found had merit. The common denominator in all these mass shootings is not guns. The commonality in all these mass shootings is a PERSON with a history of mental issues. Lanza, Loughner, etc. All were screwed up in the head. So was the gal who went on a rampage with here car in DC recently. You'll notice the media isn't covering this and people like Joe aren't screaming for the ban of cars. Same type of situation, she just used a car instead of a gun. Anyway, way back in the day it used to be legal to commit people involuntarily to a mental health care facility. I believe it was Kennedy that made that illegal, so now people can only voluntarily commit themselves. That needs to be the national focus. What do we do with these people with sever mental illness that are a danger to themselves and society? No one seems to want to talk about that.

It's a good point, but a tricky issue. Most people with issues don't start shooting people. Another issue is that if you start locking people up for what they say in large enough numbers, they will hear that's happening and refuse to talk to mental health providers. In the end, we're talking about people taking away someone else's freedom based on a perceived threat. Doesn't that scare you as well?

Yes it does. There's the obvious 4th amendment issues. There would have to be an independent system in place for determining a person's threat to society. Believe me, I get the ramifications. But it was allowed for several decades before it was disallowed.

We already HAVE the law and the means to involuntarily commit people. All one need do is bring them before a Judge and have him rule they should be put involuntarily in a mental facility. The ruling is usually stated as they are either a threat to self or others and are incompetent.

The problem with the last few crazies is NO ONE wants to actually do the part of reporting them. Or when they are reported the cops do not want to take it to a judge. In most if not all States a therapist or a Shrink are required by law to report any patient that makes threatening statements or the health care official believes is a threat to self or others.

They tell their patients on the first meeting or when the topic comes up about that requirement. Believe me mine told me.

The Judge orders a review and observation by pertinent health workers at an appropriate facility. And usually schedules another hearing for a few days later or how ever long after that the specific law allows.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I heard an interesting commentary on this debate a few days ago that I found had merit. The common denominator in all these mass shootings is not guns. The commonality in all these mass shootings is a PERSON with a history of mental issues. Lanza, Loughner, etc. All were screwed up in the head. So was the gal who went on a rampage with here car in DC recently. You'll notice the media isn't covering this and people like Joe aren't screaming for the ban of cars. Same type of situation, she just used a car instead of a gun. Anyway, way back in the day it used to be legal to commit people involuntarily to a mental health care facility. I believe it was Kennedy that made that illegal, so now people can only voluntarily commit themselves. That needs to be the national focus. What do we do with these people with sever mental illness that are a danger to themselves and society? No one seems to want to talk about that.

But where does THAT stop?

Incidently, you have it wrong. It was in teh Carter years that the courts ruled that you can't incacerate the mentally ill against their will. That's when a whole bunch of "Homeless" people started showing up (and Reagan unfairly got the blame for). Can't function in the real world, no institution would take them if they weren't imminently dangerous.

The flip side to that is where do you draw that line. Two of the "pro-gun" posters on this very thread (I won't embarrass them by pointing them out) have admitted to severe pyschological disorders. One of them has admitted to severe paranoia he takes three drugs to control. The other is Bi-Polar and admits that he doesn't have coverage to get treatment. (And he STILL thinks ObamaCare is an awful idea.) But the two of them insist UP AND DOWN that they should be able to get guns because the Founding Slave Rapists said they should.

Yes, it is unfortunate that the crazy aren't getting the treatment they need. But you know what, that lady who went on the rampage in Washington didn't get anyone killed but herself.

Because cars, unlike guns, aren't designed to kill people.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

[

I heard an interesting commentary on this debate a few days ago that I found had merit. The common denominator in all these mass shootings is not guns. The commonality in all these mass shootings is a PERSON with a history of mental issues. Lanza, Loughner, etc. All were screwed up in the head. So was the gal who went on a rampage with here car in DC recently. You'll notice the media isn't covering this and people like Joe aren't screaming for the ban of cars. Same type of situation, she just used a car instead of a gun. Anyway, way back in the day it used to be legal to commit people involuntarily to a mental health care facility. I believe it was Kennedy that made that illegal, so now people can only voluntarily commit themselves. That needs to be the national focus. What do we do with these people with sever mental illness that are a danger to themselves and society? No one seems to want to talk about that.

But where does THAT stop?

Incidently, you have it wrong. It was in teh Carter years that the courts ruled that you can't incacerate the mentally ill against their will. That's when a whole bunch of "Homeless" people started showing up (and Reagan unfairly got the blame for). Can't function in the real world, no institution would take them if they weren't imminently dangerous.

The flip side to that is where do you draw that line. Two of the "pro-gun" posters on this very thread (I won't embarrass them by pointing them out) have admitted to severe pyschological disorders. One of them has admitted to severe paranoia he takes three drugs to control. The other is Bi-Polar and admits that he doesn't have coverage to get treatment. (And he STILL thinks ObamaCare is an awful idea.) But the two of them insist UP AND DOWN that they should be able to get guns because the Founding Slave Rapists said they should.

Yes, it is unfortunate that the crazy aren't getting the treatment they need. But you know what, that lady who went on the rampage in Washington didn't get anyone killed but herself.

Because cars, unlike guns, aren't designed to kill people.

He was yanking your chain. Why would anyone talk about an official diagnosis on a forum board. Or are you making this up?

 

[JoeB131]

[

He was yanking your chain. Why would anyone talk about an official diagnosis on a forum board. Or are you making this up?

Actually, the two individuals I am speaking of have spoken repeatedly about their issues.

And frankly, I respect their candor. I suspect a lot more of you are seriously messed up, but wont' admit it.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

[

He was yanking your chain. Why would anyone talk about an official diagnosis on a forum board. Or are you making this up?

Actually, the two individuals I am speaking of have spoken repeatedly about their issues.

And frankly, I respect their candor. I suspect a lot more of you are seriously messed up, but wont' admit it.

What does it prove then?

 

[JoeB131]

[

He was yanking your chain. Why would anyone talk about an official diagnosis on a forum board. Or are you making this up?

Actually, the two individuals I am speaking of have spoken repeatedly about their issues.

And frankly, I respect their candor. I suspect a lot more of you are seriously messed up, but wont' admit it.

What does it prove then?

I think that what it proves is that if you say that gun ownership is a "right", then even the most mentally ill, no matter how much of a time-bomb he might be, has a legal ability to buy a gun.

But if you say that gun ownership is a privilage, then you really can screen who should have access to weapons and set up a criteria based on need and suitability.

Which would weed out Loughner, Holmes, Lanza, Alexis, etc.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Actually, the two individuals I am speaking of have spoken repeatedly about their issues.

And frankly, I respect their candor. I suspect a lot more of you are seriously messed up, but wont' admit it.

What does it prove then?

I think that what it proves is that if you say that gun ownership is a "right", then even the most mentally ill, no matter how much of a time-bomb he might be, has a legal ability to buy a gun.

But if you say that gun ownership is a privilage, then you really can screen who should have access to weapons and set up a criteria based on need and suitability.

Which would weed out Loughner, Holmes, Lanza, Alexis, etc.

Pointing out a few people you know and judging them is disingenuous. People like to tell stories, especially on forums like this. Most relevant is that it is illegal for mentally ill people to own guns. The government needs to enforce the laws or at least try, which I doubt they are doing. You should call for this kind of action, instead of making endless moot points.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Pointing out a few people you know and judging them is disingenuous. People like to tell stories, especially on forums like this. Most relevant is that it is illegal for mentally ill people to own guns. The government needs to enforce the laws or at least try, which I doubt they are doing. You should call for this kind of action, instead of making endless moot points.

It's illegal to have sex for money, yet there is a massage parlor not one mile from where I am at that operated for about three months before the cops shut it down last week.

A law that isn't enforced, or worse, people are intentionally trying to get around, is like having no law at all.

WHich is why I say, the fastest way to end gun violence- make the gun manufacturers and sellers legally liable with their deep pockets for those killed by guns.

They'll start screening out the bad apple really fast after that.

 

[Geaux4it]

My plan? Buy more guns and supply my neighbors when the lockdown comes

An armed society is a peaceful society

-Geaux

 

[Pogo]

I just clicked in to see whether Geaux is still running that bogus Putin quote.

Why am I not surprised...