There is no catastrophe so ghastly that we will reform our gun laws

[rightwinger]

So how many psych professionals would have to agree that someone was crazy before we start stripping rights?

Anyone who manages to make it to a PHD in psychology is immediately given the power to unilaterally decide whether or not a person is fit to exercise constitutional freedoms?

Since we're on the gun topic, here, let's put this into perspective.

A gun is simply power. The power to kill or maim. This power can be used for good, as a tool to defend someone from undue killing or maiming by using the same tactic to subdue an attacker.

This power can also be used to unduly kill or maim someone. Due to that potential, your solution is that there be less guns. Less available power.

You want to do this by giving psychologists and politicians the -power- to decide which people get to exercise their constitutional rights. This power can potentially be used for good, to keep a firearm out of the hands of someone who intends to use it for, say, a mass shooting. Or this power can be used to unduly strip someone of their constitutional rights.

With the power of a firearm, misuse can be disincentivized simply by inflicting harsh punishments on people who misuse the power of their firearm by unduly killing or maiming someone with it.

With the power of discretion over who gets to exercise their constitutional rights, similarly disincentivizing misuse would require proving that an incorrect designation of mental instability was intentional, and until technology develops that can unerringly read thoughts, that's simply not possible.

Essentially, I find this amusing: You have a problem with a power that can have its misuse effectively regulated, and a power to which every individual in our nation, even those who weren't born into the advantageous socio-economic conditions that produce college grads, has access.

Your proposed solution is to grant a power who's misuse is practically impossible to regulate, to a select few individuals who had the economic and social advantages that facilitate PHD's. I thought you lefties were supposed to be populists and in favor of good regulations. Why do you want to trade universally accessible power who's misuse is always apparent and easy to regulate, for power who's misuse is easy to hide, concentrated further into the hands of the priveleged?

Only in the case of gun control will you find populists willing to concede that college kids should decide which of the impoverished are mentally stable enough to practice their rights.

YES

To keep it simple, I believe our society should do everything in its power to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people. No loopholes, no bullshit

Our recent massacres have demonstrated that

I disagree that recent massacres have demonstrated that we should trade away "everything necessary" to prevent a few dozen deaths per year.

Murders and suicides by the psychotic are more than a few dozen and should be a definite concern of a caring society

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

YES

To keep it simple, I believe our society should do everything in its power to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people. No loopholes, no bullshit

Our recent massacres have demonstrated that

I disagree that recent massacres have demonstrated that we should trade away "everything necessary" to prevent a few dozen deaths per year.

Murders and suicides by the psychotic are more than a few dozen and should be a definite concern of a caring society

Background checks on guns won't prevent all murders and suicides by the psychotic. They'll prevent only those murders and suicides by -diagnosed- psychotics who, if they cannot obtain a firearm legally, will be completely dissuaded from their desire to murder or commit suicide. And suicide? We need to trade in our rights to dissuade people from killing themSELVES!? I'm sorry, but I would absolutely refuse to give up one iota of my freedom, to -RISK- one iota of my freedom, if you could guarantee to me that it would dissuade every suicide from now until the end of fucking time! I'm not down with forcing people to go on living, and I'm certainly not willing to PAY to force people to go on living, ESPECIALLY when the currency with which I pay would have to be my liberty. Holy fucking fuck fuck fuck I can't believe that you would even imply that such a trade would be SANE!

It's also fairly arrogant to assume that your definition of a caring society is something that I would strive to achieve. Why is it that liberalism has gone from "live and let live" to "live as I say live"? In short, fuck your "caring society" justification. That's not an argument, it's your own personal moral value. I don't see why I should be subject to it.

 

[Vigilante]

YES

To keep it simple, I believe our society should do everything in its power to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people. No loopholes, no bullshit

Our recent massacres have demonstrated that

When all guns are gone, what do you do with all the knife deaths that will replace guns?.....Currently murders by both are quite close!

There is no evidence that once guns are not available that knives replace them in either murder or suicide

And NO......knife murders are nowhere close to the number of gun murders

And there is NO EVENCE that it wouldn't....the latest figures I saw was the difference been gun murder and knife murder was less than 2000....care to share your numbers and a link to such?

 

[rightwinger]

I disagree that recent massacres have demonstrated that we should trade away "everything necessary" to prevent a few dozen deaths per year.

Murders and suicides by the psychotic are more than a few dozen and should be a definite concern of a caring society

Background checks on guns won't prevent all murders and suicides by the psychotic. They'll prevent only those murders and suicides by -diagnosed- psychotics who, if they cannot obtain a firearm legally, will be completely dissuaded from their desire to murder or commit suicide. And suicide? We need to trade in our rights to dissuade people from killing themSELVES!? I'm sorry, but I would absolutely refuse to give up one iota of my freedom, to -RISK- one iota of my freedom, if you could guarantee to me that it would dissuade every suicide from now until the end of fucking time! I'm not down with forcing people to go on living, and I'm certainly not willing to PAY to force people to go on living, ESPECIALLY when the currency with which I pay would have to be my liberty. Holy fucking fuck fuck fuck I can't believe that you would even imply that such a trade would be SANE!

It's also fairly arrogant to assume that your definition of a caring society is something that I would strive to achieve. Why is it that liberalism has gone from "live and let live" to "live as I say live"? In short, fuck your "caring society" justification. That's not an argument, it's your own personal moral value. I don't see why I should be subject to it.

So you feel that because we can't stop every murder or suicide, we should not try to stop any

Fact is that guns are the number one weapon in both murder and suicide. Those countries that have restricted public access to guns see significantly lower murder and suicide rates

But we got a second amendment, so who gives a fuck?

 

[rightwinger]

When all guns are gone, what do you do with all the knife deaths that will replace guns?.....Currently murders by both are quite close!

There is no evidence that once guns are not available that knives replace them in either murder or suicide

And NO......knife murders are nowhere close to the number of gun murders

And there is NO EVENCE that it wouldn't....the latest figures I saw was the difference been gun murder and knife murder was less than 2000....care to share your numbers and a link to such?

Looks like almost 7000 more gun murders per year than knife murders with guns accounting for two thirds of all murders. Without photoshop, do you just make shit up?

Murder Victims, by Weapons Used | Infoplease.com

 

[Mephisto]

Murders and suicides by the psychotic are more than a few dozen and should be a definite concern of a caring society

Background checks on guns won't prevent all murders and suicides by the psychotic. They'll prevent only those murders and suicides by -diagnosed- psychotics who, if they cannot obtain a firearm legally, will be completely dissuaded from their desire to murder or commit suicide. And suicide? We need to trade in our rights to dissuade people from killing themSELVES!? I'm sorry, but I would absolutely refuse to give up one iota of my freedom, to -RISK- one iota of my freedom, if you could guarantee to me that it would dissuade every suicide from now until the end of fucking time! I'm not down with forcing people to go on living, and I'm certainly not willing to PAY to force people to go on living, ESPECIALLY when the currency with which I pay would have to be my liberty. Holy fucking fuck fuck fuck I can't believe that you would even imply that such a trade would be SANE!

It's also fairly arrogant to assume that your definition of a caring society is something that I would strive to achieve. Why is it that liberalism has gone from "live and let live" to "live as I say live"? In short, fuck your "caring society" justification. That's not an argument, it's your own personal moral value. I don't see why I should be subject to it.

So you feel that because we can't stop every murder or suicide, we should not try to stop any

Fact is that guns are the number one weapon in both murder and suicide. Those countries that have restricted public access to guns see significantly lower murder and suicide rates

But we got a second amendment, so who gives a fuck?

Japan has restricted gun and has one of the highest suicide rates in the world....

 

[Vigilante]

There is no evidence that once guns are not available that knives replace them in either murder or suicide

And NO......knife murders are nowhere close to the number of gun murders

And there is NO EVENCE that it wouldn't....the latest figures I saw was the difference been gun murder and knife murder was less than 2000....care to share your numbers and a link to such?

Looks like almost 7000 more gun murders per year than knife murders with guns accounting for two thirds of all murders. Without photoshop, do you just make shit up?

Murder Victims, by Weapons Used | Infoplease.com

Here is where I got my number of approx. 10,000

How many knife related deaths occur in the USA each year? | ChaCha

But, I will acquiesce to your info as being more correct! Still no evidence that knife murders will not continue to replace gun murders if all guns are confiscated!

 

[P@triot]

Let's review:

The OP states that there is no catastrophic ghastly enough to institute real reform to our gun laws. The gun lovers maintain that guns are benign, sweet little things that only cause harm when used by criminals and the mentally ill. Fine. Let's then assume that the gun lovers are correct. Wouldn't it then be prudent to make sure that the mentally frazzled don't get their hands on the benign gun and turn it into a weapon? According to the gun lovers, such controls, even for the mentally I'll constitute an infringement of the rights of the mentally ill.

Meanwhile massacres by gun are happening in schools, theaters, churches, shopping centers, restaurants and college campuses. What about Sandy Hook? Ask the folks fed to the gills with the blood of innocent children. Gee, that's a tough one reply the gun lovers. But still the gun lovers offer NO solutions to the plague of gun violence. Instead, the gun lovers feebly try to rationalize the gun culture and the wide spread availability of weapons designed for warfare, not sport.

I'm a lying piece of shit?!? What is the gun lover it a myopic, heartless fiend bent on keeping his weapons and lusting after more of them on our streets? What is the solution to gun violence? We cannot restrict them, we cannot check to ensure the mentally ill can't get them. We cannot ban certain weapons. We cannot institute any measures to stem the tide of blood and mayhem. Ask the gun lover and you will hear nothing but rhetorical gyrations all in a narrow minded agenda that assures more massacres will indeed happen.

The OP is right. There is no catastrophic grizzly enough to change one gun lover's closed, myopic mind.

Puhlease.

Mass shootings account for less than 1% of all gun murders.

But maybe you can tell me how you plan to keep crazies and criminals from getting guns without violating anyone's rights?

So we have a bit more of that rhetorical gymnastics: there aren't enough mass shootings to be concerned about, so why bother.

Universal back ground checks. Expanded data base acquisition so ANYONE found to be mentally disturbed can never obtain a weapon. If you are so concerned about the rights of a nut case being denied a semi automatic, where's your concern for the rights of children and other innocents as they lie on a coroner's table?

On the street, that's the fault of the parents who didn't arm themselves to protect their own children.

In the schools, that's the fault of liberals who esnure victim zones so children can be slaughtered. And we are very concerned about it - it's just a challenge to over come the culture built by liberal lies and propaganda. But as soon as we do, this problem will go away.

 

[P@triot]

Let's review:

The OP states that there is no catastrophic ghastly enough to institute real reform to our gun laws. The gun lovers maintain that guns are benign, sweet little things that only cause harm when used by criminals and the mentally ill. Fine. Let's then assume that the gun lovers are correct. Wouldn't it then be prudent to make sure that the mentally frazzled don't get their hands on the benign gun and turn it into a weapon? According to the gun lovers, such controls, even for the mentally I'll constitute an infringement of the rights of the mentally ill.

Meanwhile massacres by gun are happening in schools, theaters, churches, shopping centers, restaurants and college campuses. What about Sandy Hook? Ask the folks fed to the gills with the blood of innocent children. Gee, that's a tough one reply the gun lovers. But still the gun lovers offer NO solutions to the plague of gun violence. Instead, the gun lovers feebly try to rationalize the gun culture and the wide spread availability of weapons designed for warfare, not sport.

Lets review: every place that you just mentioned explicitly banned firearms. And yet, the shooter did not obey that ban (gee - imagine that). You literally just proved that liberal policy ends in carnage and atrocities. Meanwhile, there has never been a mass shooting at an NRA meeting or a police station (a few have tried, but it didn't end well for them).

Game over. Thanks for playing.

 

[Contumacious]

But we cannot even make an inroad to prevent the mentally frazzled from obtaining the tools they use to create tragedy. We are essentially saddled with a suicide pact due to the second amendment. .

Mr. Dingle Berry, Sir:

Do you have a system for determining when someone is going to go berserk ?

No, you said?

So shut the fuck up.

ABOLISH GUN FREE ZONES so when you do go postal , I can put you out of your misery quickly and effectively. Eliminate overzealous prosecutors who feel that they must persecute anyone who stands their ground.

.

.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

To the the smart liberals on this Board: Both of you!

Liberals tell us a LOT that making drugs illegal has done absolutely nothing to prevent drug abuse. The evidence to support that contention does have a strong surface appeal if we look at what has happened and what is happening in terms of the national drug abuse problem.

Therefore, they tend to tell us that drugs should be legalized.

Guns laws don't seem to stop bad guys or psychopaths from obtaining guns and using them in crimes and related tragic events.

Wouldn't it SEEM to follow that efforts to outlaw gun possession should be abandoned on the basis of the same logic used to argue for legalization of drugs?

 

[P@triot]

Suicides do count to the persons family. And a gun is the number one form of suicide

Suicide is not illegal nor should it be.

Therefore no one's rights should be curbed because of suicide.

I'm sorry...but that is one of the dumbest responses I've seen in weeks

Having a car accident is not illegal yet we have hundreds of laws restricting your rights to drive a car

I'm literally speechless here.... Having a car accident is "not illegal"?!? Really RW? Then why do you get cited by law enforcement for having a car accident and have to appear in court or pay a fine???

I'm telling you something, liberals are the scariest creatures in the world. They are completely and totally oblivious to reality. And as such, they just make up their own version as the go.

 

[rightwinger]

Suicide is not illegal nor should it be.

Therefore no one's rights should be curbed because of suicide.

I'm sorry...but that is one of the dumbest responses I've seen in weeks

Having a car accident is not illegal yet we have hundreds of laws restricting your rights to drive a car

I'm literally speechless here.... Having a car accident is "not illegal"?!? Really RW? Then why do you get cited by law enforcement for having a car accident and have to appear in court or pay a fine???

I'm telling you something, liberals are the scariest creatures in the world. They are completely and totally oblivious to reality. And as such, they just make up their own version as the go.

Show me any motor vehicle law against accidents

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm sorry...but that is one of the dumbest responses I've seen in weeks

Having a car accident is not illegal yet we have hundreds of laws restricting your rights to drive a car

I'm literally speechless here.... Having a car accident is "not illegal"?!? Really RW? Then why do you get cited by law enforcement for having a car accident and have to appear in court or pay a fine???

I'm telling you something, liberals are the scariest creatures in the world. They are completely and totally oblivious to reality. And as such, they just make up their own version as the go.

Show me any motor vehicle law against accidents

Accidents aren't illegal of course.

But behaviors that are proven to cause accidents are illegal.

behavior can be punished but the mere purchasing of a car does not necessarily mean the owner of that car will engage in those behaviors.

So why do you people assume that a person buying a gun will necessarily harm themselves or someone else?

 

[kaz]

I'm sorry...but that is one of the dumbest responses I've seen in weeks

Having a car accident is not illegal yet we have hundreds of laws restricting your rights to drive a car

I'm literally speechless here.... Having a car accident is "not illegal"?!? Really RW? Then why do you get cited by law enforcement for having a car accident and have to appear in court or pay a fine???

I'm telling you something, liberals are the scariest creatures in the world. They are completely and totally oblivious to reality. And as such, they just make up their own version as the go.

Show me any motor vehicle law against accidents

Failure you yield right of way, reckless driving, speeding, running red lights, they are all laws that have no intent other than preventing accidents.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm literally speechless here.... Having a car accident is "not illegal"?!? Really RW? Then why do you get cited by law enforcement for having a car accident and have to appear in court or pay a fine???

I'm telling you something, liberals are the scariest creatures in the world. They are completely and totally oblivious to reality. And as such, they just make up their own version as the go.

Show me any motor vehicle law against accidents

Failure you yield right of way, reckless driving, speeding, running red lights, they are all laws that have no intent other than preventing accidents.

Exactly. They are all potential causes of accidents but not the accident itself

Same applies to guns. We don't eliminate the guns themselves but the actions which can lead to the crime

 

[martybegan]

Show me any motor vehicle law against accidents

Failure you yield right of way, reckless driving, speeding, running red lights, they are all laws that have no intent other than preventing accidents.

Exactly. They are all potential causes of accidents but not the accident itself

Same applies to guns. We don't eliminate the guns themselves but the actions which can lead to the crime

So you have to somehow eliminate human nature?

Good luck with that.

Also, how do ANY of the proposed gun laws do that?

 

[Mephisto]

I'm literally speechless here.... Having a car accident is "not illegal"?!? Really RW? Then why do you get cited by law enforcement for having a car accident and have to appear in court or pay a fine???

I'm telling you something, liberals are the scariest creatures in the world. They are completely and totally oblivious to reality. And as such, they just make up their own version as the go.

Show me any motor vehicle law against accidents

Failure you yield right of way, reckless driving, speeding, running red lights, they are all laws that have no intent other than preventing accidents.

How many more accidents would we have if these laws did not exist?

 

[kaz]

Show me any motor vehicle law against accidents

Failure you yield right of way, reckless driving, speeding, running red lights, they are all laws that have no intent other than preventing accidents.

How many more accidents would we have if these laws did not exist?

More, probably not as many more as you think we would. People don't want to get in accidents, they are expensive to repair and their insurance rates would shoot up.

I don't see an applicability to that and guns though, can you clarify?

 

[kaz]

Show me any motor vehicle law against accidents

Failure you yield right of way, reckless driving, speeding, running red lights, they are all laws that have no intent other than preventing accidents.

Exactly. They are all potential causes of accidents but not the accident itself

Same applies to guns. We don't eliminate the guns themselves but the actions which can lead to the crime

How are you going to do that?