does gun control work - a keep the debate in one thread idea

IU_Knightmare

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2004
Messages
1,103
Reaction score
753
Points
113
Location
God's Country
Feck, at this rate will it be long before the left breaks out this argument?

papergc,500x,w,f8f8f8-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.u2.jpg

 

Providence Colt

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
6,011
Reaction score
815
Points
113
Location
Boston, MA
I introduced common sense.

I need to come up with a more effective strategy, I guess.

Have a nice day.
Regulations on drivers and gun owner are both a good idea. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Greetings from Florida. Hope you’re enjoying your weekend as much as I am.
 

aloyouis

at least generally aware
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
8,673
Reaction score
2,763
Points
113
Location
Michigan
Regulations on drivers and gun owner are both a good idea. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Greetings from Florida. Hope you’re enjoying your weekend as much as I am.
LOL. Odd flex at someone that has basically lived in Naples this winter.

Odder still that you thought this was the place to do it. But I support your ability to do it.

Some reading for your beach chair: Constitution of the United States - Wikipedia
 

HSanders

omitted out of respect to Mrs.Jastremski
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
27,347
Reaction score
6,286
Points
113
Location
on Pats Planet
I tried bringing up with the voter rights issue that i find it interesting that usually the same people who want strict gun control are very willing to be quite lax on voting. considering they are both constitutional rights, they are similar in force. i got told voting doesn't kill people. 🤣
that's when i knew i had to stop because the person couldn't grasp the concept of constitutional rights.
 

deec77

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
17,548
Reaction score
8,896
Points
113
What about a knife? I'm just saying and that video is a hysterical way of saying it. When that was signed in, they were not thinking that there would guns that could take out an entire room of people in a minute, because if someone can tell me why they would need that other than well because I can, I would love to hear it. Even a ....because its cool would work. If you drive a car you have to have a license, if you drive a truck you have to have a different kind of license. There are reasons for things like that. I have a gun, its registered its in a database. I have not fired it in years. If tomorrow they said I have to be added to a database or take some mental stability test to keep owning it, it would not bother me in the least. I worry about those that it would bother. There are people....a lot of people that have guns because of power. They actually did research and showed that people who carry guns are more likely to get into a dispute or an incident because they feel more powerful. That seems scary to me. I have no problem if you want a gun, go get you one, but if you are getting one and hoping that you get to use it soon, you might have an issue, and if you cannot take some extra steps in order to own it, then something is wrong. Other then that, I will wait until I can get my weapon of mass destruction to get at my home to protect my family....

to the bolded

To take out the person before they killed the room full of people. :coffee:

~Dee~
 

foobahl

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
4,329
Reaction score
1,853
Points
113
Location
the only Henniker on earth

deec77

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
17,548
Reaction score
8,896
Points
113
with relatives and others being increasingly empowered to report on whether someone should be allowed to have a weapon, this belongs here.

This has to be one of the convoluted study Ive read yet. Chicken egg you lock everyone down and they tend to become depressed, you get sick you tend to suffer from anxiety .......

I don’t disagree with the premise as my practice has grown unfortunately. None of my patients has tested positive nor have any of their family members.

But I do agree this could be dangerous ....Ive said before I have to go to court too fight to get someone whose a danger to themselves or other into a care facility. If they change the laws is going to clog the courts....

~Dee~
 
Last edited:

Inspector_50

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
4,933
Reaction score
928
Points
113
Location
California
to the bolded

To take out the person before they killed the room full of people. :coffee:

~Dee~
Ah yes the good guy with the gun. I forgot. I mean this has come through so many times. Problem is, when a guy who does not care about dying comes in spraying his high powered gun that was designed for nothing more than killing people, and then you have 4 untrained people wanting to be the hero all pull at the same times, and then you have a nice cross fire going on in said room, and boy do the cops love it when they get there and 5 people are all shooting at each other, makes their job easier for sure. Fact is, guns were made for war. In the very beginning that was their purpose. To be used in war to kill humans, the guns that can kill the most humans is the better gun to use. People like to bring up bombings, etc etc. Thing is, people who commit mass shootings, have a few things in common. They have control issues, and they feel powerless in their lives. I have seen breakdowns of these shooters and this is always the one of many factors. They have mental issues and have the notion that they lack power in their lives and nobody takes them serious. A bomb does not help that, a car does not help that. What does help that is to walk in with the most scary gun you can get, and to see the faces of the people that either wronged you, or you place on people that you think wronged you. Thats the power they are looking for, they are not looking to get away with it, they are not looking to win a war, they are looking to get that power back, and that does the job before they die. The thrill they have is always the thought of the killings before they even happen, that is where they get their thrill, the carrying out of it is just the final step. So to make it easier for them, its best to keep making high powered large magazine guns that are scary looking and make them easy to get.
 

deec77

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
17,548
Reaction score
8,896
Points
113
Ah yes the good guy with the gun. I forgot. I mean this has come through so many times. Problem is, when a guy who does not care about dying comes in spraying his high powered gun that was designed for nothing more than killing people, and then you have 4 untrained people wanting to be the hero all pull at the same times, and then you have a nice cross fire going on in said room, and boy do the cops love it when they get there and 5 people are all shooting at each other, makes their job easier for sure. Fact is, guns were made for war. In the very beginning that was their purpose. To be used in war to kill humans, the guns that can kill the most humans is the better gun to use. People like to bring up bombings, etc etc. Thing is, people who commit mass shootings, have a few things in common. They have control issues, and they feel powerless in their lives. I have seen breakdowns of these shooters and this is always the one of many factors. They have mental issues and have the notion that they lack power in their lives and nobody takes them serious. A bomb does not help that, a car does not help that. What does help that is to walk in with the most scary gun you can get, and to see the faces of the people that either wronged you, or you place on people that you think wronged you. Thats the power they are looking for, they are not looking to get away with it, they are not looking to win a war, they are looking to get that power back, and that does the job before they die. The thrill they have is always the thought of the killings before they even happen, that is where they get their thrill, the carrying out of it is just the final step. So to make it easier for them, its best to keep making high powered large magazine guns that are scary looking and make them easy to get.
You keep talking about the scariness of the whatever gun/rifle.... I guess my question is which firearm are you talking about that makes the mentally ill person powerful? Its a serious question.

~Dee~
 

Giant Octopodes

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
1,215
Reaction score
612
Points
113
Location
Michigan
Ah yes the good guy with the gun. I forgot. I mean this has come through so many times. Problem is, when a guy who does not care about dying comes in spraying his high powered gun that was designed for nothing more than killing people, and then you have 4 untrained people wanting to be the hero all pull at the same times, and then you have a nice cross fire going on in said room, and boy do the cops love it when they get there and 5 people are all shooting at each other, makes their job easier for sure. Fact is, guns were made for war. In the very beginning that was their purpose. To be used in war to kill humans, the guns that can kill the most humans is the better gun to use. People like to bring up bombings, etc etc. Thing is, people who commit mass shootings, have a few things in common. They have control issues, and they feel powerless in their lives. I have seen breakdowns of these shooters and this is always the one of many factors. They have mental issues and have the notion that they lack power in their lives and nobody takes them serious. A bomb does not help that, a car does not help that. What does help that is to walk in with the most scary gun you can get, and to see the faces of the people that either wronged you, or you place on people that you think wronged you. Thats the power they are looking for, they are not looking to get away with it, they are not looking to win a war, they are looking to get that power back, and that does the job before they die. The thrill they have is always the thought of the killings before they even happen, that is where they get their thrill, the carrying out of it is just the final step. So to make it easier for them, its best to keep making high powered large magazine guns that are scary looking and make them easy to get.

1) How are they untrained? They are legally required to go through firearm training in every state I'm aware of
2) The cops don't get there and join a crossfire, those tend to end pretty quick. There's multiple examples of situations like this, unfortunately, here's a couple:
Mass shootings only happen in areas where folks are legally prevented from carrying weapons for a reason. When others are armed, it tends to go like the stories above and others like them.

And yes, guns are used to kill people. That's why we the people get to have them, because the government does, so we can engage in war with the government if we need to. That's what the second amendment is all about. If you want the people of the united states to not have guns, you need the government to not have them first. And if you want that, well, our enemies abroad would probably be pretty happy about it, so my personal vote is they disarm first. But if you convince all other nations to abandon firearms, and get them out of the hands of the government, I'll subsequently listen to any arguments made about getting them out of the hands of the populace. Fair?
 

Inspector_50

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
4,933
Reaction score
928
Points
113
Location
California
1) How are they untrained? They are legally required to go through firearm training in every state I'm aware of
2) The cops don't get there and join a crossfire, those tend to end pretty quick. There's multiple examples of situations like this, unfortunately, here's a couple:
Mass shootings only happen in areas where folks are legally prevented from carrying weapons for a reason. When others are armed, it tends to go like the stories above and others like them.

And yes, guns are used to kill people. That's why we the people get to have them, because the government does, so we can engage in war with the government if we need to. That's what the second amendment is all about. If you want the people of the united states to not have guns, you need the government to not have them first. And if you want that, well, our enemies abroad would probably be pretty happy about it, so my personal vote is they disarm first. But if you convince all other nations to abandon firearms, and get them out of the hands of the government, I'll subsequently listen to any arguments made about getting them out of the hands of the populace. Fair?
False. No every state does not require training to purchase a firearm. There are states you can literally walk into a store and buy a gun, I have lived in them.
 

Giant Octopodes

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
1,215
Reaction score
612
Points
113
Location
Michigan
False. No every state does not require training to purchase a firearm. There are states you can literally walk into a store and buy a gun, I have lived in them.
I looked into it, and you are correct. "Shall not be infringed" is shall not be infringed, so more power to them, though it makes no sense to me for a state to require a background check and Not require training. I would think you'd start with demonstrating you can safely use it Long before you got to the point where you're trying to prevent folks from getting them even if they can safely use them, because you're worried about how they're going to use them. Regardless, I stand by the rest of what I said, any thoughts on the rest of it?
 

Inspector_50

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
4,933
Reaction score
928
Points
113
Location
California
I looked into it, and you are correct. "Shall not be infringed" is shall not be infringed, so more power to them, though it makes no sense to me for a state to require a background check and Not require training. I would think you'd start with demonstrating you can safely use it Long before you got to the point where you're trying to prevent folks from getting them even if they can safely use them, because you're worried about how they're going to use them. Regardless, I stand by the rest of what I said, any thoughts on the rest of it?
Well thats the problem, and why people want some things changed. If you cannot handle having a back ground check or getting trained to use the gun, why do you want it and why are you opposed to getting that? Sorry but I would feel pretty suspect of someone to hand them a gun when they will not let you see if they know how to use it and are not some maniac. I mean you have to learn to drive before they give you a license.
 

Inspector_50

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
4,933
Reaction score
928
Points
113
Location
California
There are eight states that require no training .....most states require some sort of training for hand guns.


~Dee~
Well sort of, look at the different things that are required, most are pretty flimsy. Its not as black and white as you said. Some only require documents to be filled out. The military is not only trained to use a gun, they are trained in mental aspects to using a gun, same with police, so they do not just start shooting when they hear a loud sound. if you want to own something that can do the damage it does, then you should be able to handle situations that call for it. It needs to be in all states and be all the same. If its not, then its useless. Also there are loop holes that exist, like gun shows, etc. Unless this is all controlled in some manner like things that are not even near as dangerous, then the problem will exist. I own a gun and I would have no problem with doing any of that, why would someone else?
 

Giant Octopodes

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
1,215
Reaction score
612
Points
113
Location
Michigan
Well thats the problem, and why people want some things changed. If you cannot handle having a back ground check or getting trained to use the gun, why do you want it and why are you opposed to getting that? Sorry but I would feel pretty suspect of someone to hand them a gun when they will not let you see if they know how to use it and are not some maniac. I mean you have to learn to drive before they give you a license.
I've said why I would be opposed to having that as a requirement multiple times. There are a variety of reasons why one might not want to have their background checked, not the least of which is it's none of the other person's business, and why they would want it is their own business as well. We have limitations on who can drive what and when because it's not a constitutionally protected right.

I understand your stance, but it's a stance which is coming from a place where the second amendment doesn't exist or is an inconvenience at best. You understand my argument that the reason the second amendment exists, and the reason why guns should be in as many homes as possible, is in case we need to wage war against the government, right? It's written into the text of the amendment itself. Because the government needs to have guns to maintain its security, the right of the people to have guns shall not be infringed, so they can defend their liberties. It's really just as simple as that to me.

If you say well sure, but we need to have laws regulating them so we can be protected from each other, the trouble with that is, the one crafting and enforcing those laws is the very government the second amendment is trying to ensure we can fight if necessary. When the government can find anti-government views or tendencies and then say 'see he's mentally unfit to carry a weapon', you can see how that undermines the entire purpose of the second amendment, right? It's not 'since the government needs to have guns to maintain its security, the people the government is ok with get to have guns', that just doesn't work.
 

deec77

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
17,548
Reaction score
8,896
Points
113
Well sort of, look at the different things that are required, most are pretty flimsy. Its not as black and white as you said. Some only require documents to be filled out. The military is not only trained to use a gun, they are trained in mental aspects to using a gun, same with police, so they do not just start shooting when they hear a loud sound. if you want to own something that can do the damage it does, then you should be able to handle situations that call for it. It needs to be in all states and be all the same. If its not, then its useless. Also there are loop holes that exist, like gun shows, etc. Unless this is all controlled in some manner like things that are not even near as dangerous, then the problem will exist. I own a gun and I would have no problem with doing any of that, why would someone else?
Sure I certainly agree that it’s helpful to have all that training but... you're making the broad assumption that people don’t take personal responsibility for their gun use. A vast majority of legally purchased guns are rifles used for hunting.

Amendment II​

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Its more a state issue then a federal issue that’s why laws at the federal regarding the Bill of rights were taken and voted upon by those states representative. We sometimes forget the the original states had their own constitutions before the federal government did.


1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

~Dee~
 
Last edited:

Inspector_50

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
4,933
Reaction score
928
Points
113
Location
California
Sure I certainly agree that it’s helpful to have all that training but... you're making the broad assumption that people don’t take personal responsibility for their gun use. A vast majority of legally purchased guns are rifles used for hunting.

Amendment II​

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Its more a state issue then a federal issue that’s why laws at the federal regarding the Bill of rights were taken and voted upon by those states representative. We sometimes forget the the original states had their own constitutions before the federal government did.




~Dee~
No, I am making the broad assumption that people can barely chew gum and walk at the same time and yet can go get a gun. There is a 20 year old kid that lived across from me a few years ago, he would burn ants with lighters in his driveway....he should not have a gun. Not everyone is this fun loving hero to all mankind that would only use their power for good. There are not only mean people out there, worse yet there are stupid people out there. Lots of them. There is a reason they have to write do not drink the bleach, and you want them to have guns? Thats what I am saying. Its not black and white and should not be treated as such just because something was written 200 years ago in a completely different existence. Life is not black and white nor should that be used as an excuse why anyone should be able to get a dangerous fire arm capable of killing a large amount of people in a small amount of time that did not exist during the time that was written. All my opinion and nothing more.
 
Top