SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 1 of 212>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Guns don't kill, Crazy people Do< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5298
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 05 2013, 7:43 am  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

But we never learn....and we rarely listen

We just react...and pretend to be suprised

http://www.usatoday.com/story....2054753

"A University of Colorado psychiatrist told campus police a month before the Aurora movie theater attack that James Holmes had homicidal thoughts and was a public danger, according to records unsealed Thursday."

Can't help wondering if a simple visit by authorities during that month would not have changed things


--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
Land Rover Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6597
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 05 2013, 8:17 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

God knows what would have happened if a person like this had unfettered access to as many guns and as much ammunition as he wanted.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7192
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 05 2013, 8:42 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

God knows what would have happened if authorities had given him a visit or put him in an institution in the interests of public safety.

Oh wait.. I know too. Nothing! Except the movie would have ended and everyone gone home.

But no. The left insists that locking someone up before they commit a crime is a civil rights violation regardless of how whackadoodle and dangerous  that person is.


--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6628
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 05 2013, 8:44 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montanalonewolf @ Apr. 05 2013, 7:42 am)
QUOTE
But no. The left insists that locking someone up before they commit a crime is a civil rights violation regardless of how whackadoodle and dangerous  that person is.

Really? On what basis do you make that assertion?

--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7192
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 05 2013, 9:24 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Medical and psychological data in a doctor/patient relationships is confidential and public knowledge of a mental illness creates a stigma against that person, which is unacceptable to the left (but of course, to the anti-gun left, just wanting to own guns is a mental illness. To the right, not wanting to own one is).

Just look at the left's tactics. Instead of passing laws allowing at least temporary detention of someone perceived to be a public danger, it wants laws penalizing the 99.9999% of the lawful and legal gun owners "to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill". IOW, take the tool from the millions rather than doing something about the extremely rare few (% illegal use against legal use) who would misuse it.

I know many refuse to accept the comparison but look at DUI/DWI. The laws don't go after those who legally operate motor vehicles, they go after the illegal use. Why the difference? (Note I'm not just saying "all MV" but only DUI/DWI).


--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
Ecocentric Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5219
Joined: Jun. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 05 2013, 9:36 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

It's not just that simple. Mental health professionals are going to have to come to grips with what is in the interest of the common good, and what is a broach of patient doctor privilege. A tip called in to a mental health hot line, would have half of TPA calling in investigations on the other half daily. Not all liberals are against picking up dangerously sick individuals for observation. Likewise, I can be operating my car in a safe and sober manner and still be subject to a sobriety stop. Maybe they should do the same when folks are picking up a pallet full of ammo?

--------------
"Travel suggestions from strangers are like dancing lessons from God." -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
Ron. Search for posts by this member.
don't surround yourself with your self
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 11994
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 05 2013, 10:01 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

If you are a danger to society with a gun then I suspect you are a danger to society without a gun.

--------------
And be kind toward one another
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6628
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 05 2013, 10:42 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montanalonewolf @ Apr. 05 2013, 8:24 am)
QUOTE
Medical and psychological data in a doctor/patient relationships is confidential and public knowledge of a mental illness creates a stigma against that person, which is unacceptable to the left (but of course, to the anti-gun left, just wanting to own guns is a mental illness. To the right, not wanting to own one is).

Just look at the left's tactics. Instead of passing laws allowing at least temporary detention of someone perceived to be a public danger, it wants laws penalizing the 99.9999% of the lawful and legal gun owners "to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill". IOW, take the tool from the millions rather than doing something about the extremely rare few (% illegal use against legal use) who would misuse it.

I know many refuse to accept the comparison but look at DUI/DWI. The laws don't go after those who legally operate motor vehicles, they go after the illegal use. Why the difference? (Note I'm not just saying "all MV" but only DUI/DWI).

You're the one who refuses to accept your own comparison to DUI/DWI as it relates to the point you're trying to make. The laws don't "go after the illegal use" until a law is actually broken and if it is your contention this is as it should be, then it follows that the law should not "go after" a person with mental issues (deprive them of the right to bear arms) until they have actually broken the law with a firearm.

Your comparison refutes the point you're trying to make about keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill before they commit a crime.

Additionally, in your 2nd paragraph you assert the "left" is trying to "take the tool from millions" rather than identify the mentally ill and take it from them only. That is pure unadulterated BS. Efforts to implement a comprehensive background check are designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals & psychopaths while preserving that right for law abiding citizens. Some actually want to ban private gun ownership altogether, but they are a minority and no such bill is being put before Congress and wouldn't have a chance of passing anyway.

Doctor/client privilege is a complex matter, and not easily divided right vs left; I'm sure Libertarians would take issue with violating that privilege. On the other hand, is it the right or the left side of the political spectrum that would like to take steps to ensure that mental health coverage is more available & affordable?


--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
JimInMD Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3966
Joined: Feb. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 05 2013, 10:50 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

MD's new law takes this to bizarre new levels.

Unless changed, the new law says that you are prohibited from owning a weapon if A) you have ever been involuntarily committed or B) been voluntarily committed for longer than 30 days.  To get cleared of this, you would need a letter from a psychiatrist stating that you are not a threat.  The MD council for psych docters has told the state that they will not put their members in the middle of this and can't imagine any of their members would ever be comfortable writing such a letter because they don't want the liability in case they're wrong.

I know of a person right now that may have to get rid of his guns before October because he was hospitalized for two months when he was 5 years old.  He has never again been treated and has no criminal record.


--------------
"Your number one philosophy for personal security should be a life long commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation."

The 3 Stupids Rule:

Don’t go to stupid places, with stupid people, to do stupid things.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6628
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 05 2013, 10:59 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(JimInMD @ Apr. 05 2013, 9:50 am)
QUOTE
MD's new law takes this to bizarre new levels.

Unless changed, the new law says that you are prohibited from owning a weapon if A) you have ever been involuntarily committed or B) been voluntarily committed for longer than 30 days.  To get cleared of this, you would need a letter from a psychiatrist stating that you are not a threat.  The MD council for psych docters has told the state that they will not put their members in the middle of this and can't imagine any of their members would ever be comfortable writing such a letter because they don't want the liability in case they're wrong.

I know of a person right now that may have to get rid of his guns before October because he was hospitalized for two months when he was 5 years old.  He has never again been treated and has no criminal record.

Are those laws to prohibit people with mental health issues from owning guns coming from the right or the left side of the political spectrum?

According to MLW, the "left insists that locking someone up before they commit a crime is a civil rights violation regardless of how whackadoodle and dangerous  that person is." (in the context of the point MLW was trying to make "locking someone up" equates to denial of gun ownership).


--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5298
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 05 2013, 10:59 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I think the point is that we seem to want to treat everyone like a criminal EXCEPT those that might actually be bad people


The police will take your guns if you are accused (not convicted) of domestic violence but if your shrink tells the police you are a danger to society they will not even check on you???

Makes perfect sense

This doctor used the exception that allows them to release information if the patient is a danger to themselves or others and it just got filed somewhere and then covered up when TSHTF

Your argument makes no sense if you say you want UBC's to prevent psycipaths from getting guns but you are not going to identify psycopaths

You want to register law abiding gun owners but still exempt lunatics and criminals

People that believe that really are crazy...but possibly not violent


--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
JimInMD Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3966
Joined: Feb. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 05 2013, 11:07 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Drift Woody @ Apr. 05 2013, 10:59 am)
QUOTE
Are those laws to prohibit people with mental health issues from owning guns coming from the right or the left side of the political spectrum?

To answer this question directly, this idea is from the Democratic Party as was the whole of MD's bill.

The larger issue to locking people up and keeping them there is a much bigger one with MD's new bill but applies more to criminal sentencing than mental health.


--------------
"Your number one philosophy for personal security should be a life long commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation."

The 3 Stupids Rule:

Don’t go to stupid places, with stupid people, to do stupid things.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
Bass Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2286
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 05 2013, 11:14 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

BillBab
QUOTE
Your argument makes no sense if you say you want UBC's to prevent psycipaths from getting guns but you are not going to identify psycopaths


You are right to have those concerns. That is a big part of the reason that the existing background check law needs to be strengthened as currently debated.

Some line must be drawn where a person's mental illness means that they must be reported to the existing or new background check program and denied gun ownership. That means weighing privacy against the public good.

It is not an easy debate, but everyone agrees that the biggest failure of the existing background system is the failure to report the mentally ill to the existing system.

I am not refuting that private sales are a concern. But the guns used in the latest mass shootings were obtained WITH a background check by insane people - not via a private sale.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6628
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 05 2013, 11:20 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(BillBab @ Apr. 05 2013, 9:59 am)
QUOTE
You want to register law abiding gun owners but still exempt lunatics and criminals

Absolute BS.

--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
EastieTrekker Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mar. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 05 2013, 12:05 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(JimInMD @ Apr. 05 2013, 10:50 am)
QUOTE
I know of a person right now that may have to get rid of his guns before October because he was hospitalized for two months when he was 5 years old.  He has never again been treated and has no criminal record.

What do you mean by that?  He was committed to a mental institution at the age of 5 for two months?

--------------
I request all the possible consumer protection organizations, and fight with their injustice.   ???
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
JimInMD Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3966
Joined: Feb. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 05 2013, 12:13 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(EastieTrekker @ Apr. 05 2013, 12:05 pm)
QUOTE

(JimInMD @ Apr. 05 2013, 10:50 am)
QUOTE
I know of a person right now that may have to get rid of his guns before October because he was hospitalized for two months when he was 5 years old.  He has never again been treated and has no criminal record.

What do you mean by that?  He was committed to a mental institution at the age of 5 for two months?

Yes.  He was placed in an in-patient children's psychiatric treatment program when he was 5.

--------------
"Your number one philosophy for personal security should be a life long commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation."

The 3 Stupids Rule:

Don’t go to stupid places, with stupid people, to do stupid things.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7192
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 05 2013, 11:20 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

QUOTE
You're the one who refuses to accept your own comparison to DUI/DWI as it relates to the point you're trying to make. The laws don't "go after the illegal use" until a law is actually broken and if it is your contention this is as it should be, then it follows that the law should not "go after" a person with mental issues (deprive them of the right to bear arms) until they have actually broken the law with a firearm.


You're either being deliberately obtuse or just too blinded by your gun hatred to see past your nose.

When a vehicle is used to commit a crime, the driver is apprehended, not the vehicle nor is there public outrage to ban a particular vehicle or restrict its top speed.*  When a gun is used to commit a crime, the drive is to ban/restrict guns in addition to apprehending the perpetrator even though the gun is only a tool as is a car.

A person deemed mentally ill is already prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm so the simple fact of possession or an attempt to possess is a law violation. Putting mentally ill in the background data helps prevent that but again, right to privacy and confidentiality prevents doing that.

*But I have to wonder... since the tech is available, why isn't there a public drive to require all vehicles have alcohol ignition locks, much like the required seatbelts and airbags in the interests of public safety? After all, seatbelts and airbags are passive protection. An AIL is active prevention.


--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
hikerjer Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10967
Joined: Apr. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 05 2013, 11:50 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

You know, this whole conversation reminds me of a conversation I had with a German exchange student shortly after Columbine.  I said, "Kurt, you must have crazy people in Gemany too."  "Ja, he says, we've got them.  We just don't let them have guns."

--------------
"Too often I have met men who boast only of how many miles they've traveled and not of what they've seen."  -  Louis L'Amour
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8300
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 06 2013, 12:46 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montanalonewolf @ Apr. 05 2013, 6:24 am)
QUOTE
Instead of passing laws allowing at least temporary detention of someone perceived to be a public danger, ...

This law already exists in California.  
And it is used on a regular basis.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
Ecocentric Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5219
Joined: Jun. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 06 2013, 9:15 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

That law might slow down the economy in parts of Montana.

--------------
"Travel suggestions from strangers are like dancing lessons from God." -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 06 2013, 9:30 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(JimInMD @ Apr. 05 2013, 10:50 am)
QUOTE
MD's new law takes this to bizarre new levels.

Unless changed, the new law says that you are prohibited from owning a weapon if A) you have ever been involuntarily committed or B) been voluntarily committed for longer than 30 days.  To get cleared of this, you would need a letter from a psychiatrist stating that you are not a threat.  The MD council for psych docters has told the state that they will not put their members in the middle of this and can't imagine any of their members would ever be comfortable writing such a letter because they don't want the liability in case they're wrong.

I know of a person right now that may have to get rid of his guns before October because he was hospitalized for two months when he was 5 years old.  He has never again been treated and has no criminal record.

That is a terrible story Jim. I hope the ACLU defends him if things get to that point.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 22
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6628
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 06 2013, 9:31 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montanalonewolf @ Apr. 05 2013, 10:20 pm)
QUOTE

(Montanalonewolf @ Apr. 05 2013, 8:24 am)
QUOTE
Medical and psychological data in a doctor/patient relationships is confidential and public knowledge of a mental illness creates a stigma against that person, which is unacceptable to the left (but of course, to the anti-gun left, just wanting to own guns is a mental illness. To the right, not wanting to own one is).

Just look at the left's tactics. Instead of passing laws allowing at least temporary detention of someone perceived to be a public danger, it wants laws penalizing the 99.9999% of the lawful and legal gun owners "to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill". IOW, take the tool from the millions rather than doing something about the extremely rare few (% illegal use against legal use) who would misuse it.

I know many refuse to accept the comparison but look at DUI/DWI. The laws don't go after those who legally operate motor vehicles, they go after the illegal use. Why the difference? (Note I'm not just saying "all MV" but only DUI/DWI).

(Drift Woody @ Apr. 05 2013, 9:42 am)
QUOTE
You're the one who refuses to accept your own comparison to DUI/DWI as it relates to the point you're trying to make. The laws don't "go after the illegal use" until a law is actually broken and if it is your contention this is as it should be, then it follows that the law should not "go after" a person with mental issues (deprive them of the right to bear arms) until they have actually broken the law with a firearm.

Your comparison refutes the point you're trying to make about keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill before they commit a crime.

Additionally, in your 2nd paragraph you assert the "left" is trying to "take the tool from millions" rather than identify the mentally ill and take it from them only. That is pure unadulterated BS. Efforts to implement a comprehensive background check are designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals & psychopaths while preserving that right for law abiding citizens. Some actually want to ban private gun ownership altogether, but they are a minority and no such bill is being put before Congress and wouldn't have a chance of passing anyway.

Doctor/client privilege is a complex matter, and not easily divided right vs left; I'm sure Libertarians would take issue with violating that privilege. On the other hand, is it the right or the left side of the political spectrum that would like to take steps to ensure that mental health coverage is more available & affordable?

You're either being deliberately obtuse or just too blinded by your gun hatred to see past your nose.

When a vehicle is used to commit a crime, the driver is apprehended, not the vehicle nor is there public outrage to ban a particular vehicle or restrict its top speed.*  When a gun is used to commit a crime, the drive is to ban/restrict guns in addition to apprehending the perpetrator even though the gun is only a tool as is a car.

A person deemed mentally ill is already prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm so the simple fact of possession or an attempt to possess is a law violation. Putting mentally ill in the background data helps prevent that but again, right to privacy and confidentiality prevents doing that.

*But I have to wonder... since the tech is available, why isn't there a public drive to require all vehicles have alcohol ignition locks, much like the required seatbelts and airbags in the interests of public safety? After all, seatbelts and airbags are passive protection. An AIL is active prevention.

Now you're singing a completely different toon. That's not the argument you made in the post I responded to, which I have taken the liberty to quote in full above. Taken in its entirety, you were blaming the "left" for not wanting to take measures against the mentally ill before they commit a crime, while holding up DUI as an example as to why no measures should be taken until after a crime is committed. You can't have it both ways. The equivalent of a psycho with a gun is an alcoholic with a car. If you want laws to take action against the psycho before he shoots someone then action should be taken against a drunk before he drives.

And in any event, your following statement is wrong:
The laws don't go after those who legally operate motor vehicles

Au contraire; the law DOES "go after" those who legally operate motor vehicles. It requires them to pass a test, obtain a license, register their vehicle, and in most states pay taxes on it and/or obtain insurance.

With guns the equivalent to the test is the comprehensive background check; if you don't pass the test you can't buy the gun or get your license to drive a car. Since you seem to be OK with the laws pertaining to motor vehicle use, are you OK with a comprehensive system of background checks to keep criminals & psychopaths from legally buying guns? Are you also OK with the licensing of gun owners and registration of all firearms? I probably shouldn't ask if you're OK with paying taxes and mandatory insurance for guns.

Are you ready to drop the comparison to MV's you're so fond of bringing up?


BTW, I have no "hatred" of inanimate objects, but I do despise people who are so obsessed with inanimate objects that they effectively block measures that would save innocent lives and that would be just a minor hassle in obtaining more of their beloved objects.


--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 06 2013, 9:33 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(hikerjer @ Apr. 05 2013, 11:50 pm)
QUOTE
You know, this whole conversation reminds me of a conversation I had with a German exchange student shortly after Columbine.  I said, "Kurt, you must have crazy people in Gemany too."  "Ja, he says, we've got them.  We just don't let them have guns."

Bingo. That's all responsibly minded people here want. Is to deny guns to the crazy people, not everybody. The Virginia tech, Aurora and Sandy Hook shooters all were mentally ill and zoning out on psychotropic drugs.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6628
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 06 2013, 9:48 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montecresto @ Apr. 06 2013, 8:33 am)
QUOTE

(hikerjer @ Apr. 05 2013, 11:50 pm)
QUOTE
You know, this whole conversation reminds me of a conversation I had with a German exchange student shortly after Columbine.  I said, "Kurt, you must have crazy people in Gemany too."  "Ja, he says, we've got them.  We just don't let them have guns."

Bingo. That's all responsibly minded people here want. Is to deny guns to the crazy people, not everybody. The Virginia tech, Aurora and Sandy Hook shooters all were mentally ill and zoning out on psychotropic drugs.

So then, you DO support a comprehensive system of background checks for every gun purchase?

--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 06 2013, 10:10 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I would prefer to see America take this bull (mental illness) by the horns and deal with it. A very grave warning went out concerning the Aurora shooter 30 days prior, nothing was done, no one listened and twelve people were murdered. The knee jerkers say, quick, restrict guns, magazines, ammo, force everyone to register their guns, confiscate guns............

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 26
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7192
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 06 2013, 10:21 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

QUOTE
are you OK with a comprehensive system of background checks to keep criminals & psychopaths from legally buying guns? Are you also OK with the licensing of gun owners

I've said I am. I have a CWP even though I don't actually need one in this state. The BGC took more than 2 months and allows me to buy guns without a further check. And as one cop put it, it's also a "good guy card".

QUOTE
and registration of all firearms?

No. Except with one caveat, there's no need for the government to know exactly what I have, the same as with MV not used on public roadways such as farm vehicles. The exception is public carry. The firearm(s) carried as a self defense means should be. Weapons en route for hunting or target shooting need not be.


--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 27
JimInMD Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3966
Joined: Feb. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 06 2013, 10:36 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I tell you what I'd be willing to do Drift, brass tacks, final offer.  I'd be willing to submit to a background and get a FOID.  I'd be willing to keep that card with me while armed and present it if legally stopped for some other reason.  I'd agree to an instant background check for purchases just to make sure that nothing has changed since the buyer received their FOID. There are a few things I want from my side...

1) The FOID must be essentially free as must the checks.  Otherwise you're looking at a burden for low income people that are most likely to be found in exactly the kind of areas where they may need a gun for protection.

2) The list of disqualifiers must be clear and not abusive with a way to appeal the decision of disqualification.

3) After the check is completed for background purposes, it should be destroyed.  NO record of the guns should be included as part of the check.  The WHO is important, not the what.

4) The trade-off is that we're done with equipment restrictions.  I'm as law abiding as they come and as trusted as they come.  If I want a belt fed machine gun, I should be able to own it. Same thing applies for concealed carry.  If a private business wants to prohibit, fine.  If the government feels they have a compelling reason to prohibit on their premises than they should have a legal duty to provide for your protection while on the premises.

Now, it's not going to solve crime, it won't stop violence and it won't make either side happy.  Illegal sales will still happen and people that want to kill people will still do it.  Civil libertarians will be upset about a license for a right (put me in that category).  I don't really think it would solve anything, but if someone made me that offer, licensing for a removal of equipment based laws, I'm pretty sure I'd take it.


--------------
"Your number one philosophy for personal security should be a life long commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation."

The 3 Stupids Rule:

Don’t go to stupid places, with stupid people, to do stupid things.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 28
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5298
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 06 2013, 10:43 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Drift Woody @ Apr. 06 2013, 9:48 am)
QUOTE

(Montecresto @ Apr. 06 2013, 8:33 am)
QUOTE

(hikerjer @ Apr. 05 2013, 11:50 pm)
QUOTE
You know, this whole conversation reminds me of a conversation I had with a German exchange student shortly after Columbine.  I said, "Kurt, you must have crazy people in Gemany too."  "Ja, he says, we've got them.  We just don't let them have guns."

Bingo. That's all responsibly minded people here want. Is to deny guns to the crazy people, not everybody. The Virginia tech, Aurora and Sandy Hook shooters all were mentally ill and zoning out on psychotropic drugs.

So then, you DO support a comprehensive system of background checks for every gun purchase?

I support putting nutz in the bad guy database

And that includes crazy politicians :)

http://theothermccain.com/2013....unpoint


--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 29
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5298
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 06 2013, 10:45 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(hikerjer @ Apr. 05 2013, 11:50 pm)
QUOTE
You know, this whole conversation reminds me of a conversation I had with a German exchange student shortly after Columbine.  I said, "Kurt, you must have crazy people in Gemany too."  "Ja, he says, we've got them.  We just don't let them have guns."

oops

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting


--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 30
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 06 2013, 10:54 am Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE


(JimInMD @ Apr. 06 2013, 10:36 am)
QUOTE
I tell you what I'd be willing to do Drift, brass tacks, final offer.  I'd be willing to submit to a background and get a FOID.  I'd be willing to keep that card with me while armed and present it if legally stopped for some other reason.  I'd agree to an instant background check for purchases just to make sure that nothing has changed since the buyer received their FOID. There are a few things I want from my side...

1) The FOID must be essentially free as must the checks.  Otherwise you're looking at a burden for low income people that are most likely to be found in exactly the kind of areas where they may need a gun for protection.

2) The list of disqualifiers must be clear and not abusive with a way to appeal the decision of disqualification.

3) After the check is completed for background purposes, it should be destroyed.  NO record of the guns should be included as part of the check.  The WHO is important, not the what.

4) The trade-off is that we're done with equipment restrictions.  I'm as law abiding as they come and as trusted as they come.  If I want a belt fed machine gun, I should be able to own it. Same thing applies for concealed carry.  If a private business wants to prohibit, fine.  If the government feels they have a compelling reason to prohibit on their premises than they should have a legal duty to provide for your protection while on the premises.

Now, it's not going to solve crime, it won't stop violence and it won't make either side happy.  Illegal sales will still happen and people that want to kill people will still do it.  Civil libertarians will be upset about a license for a right (put me in that category).  I don't really think it would solve anything, but if someone made me that offer, licensing for a removal of equipment based laws, I'm pretty sure I'd take it.

That actually sounds like a reasonable compromise!

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
51 replies since Apr. 05 2013, 7:43 am < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 1 of 212>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Guns don't kill
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions