Another idiot with a gun

[rebeccajo 14]

If a person has been found to have a mental disorder, or has had a recent mental hygiene commitment, should they be 'disarmed?'

[Peikko 1,575]

The denial that weapons are good for killing things argument cracks me up every time. Yeah, I'll get my plastic bag out again

[Ban Hammer 13,895]

If a person has been found to have a mental disorder, or has had a recent mental hygiene commitment, should they be 'disarmed?'

by who?

[rebeccajo 14]

If a person has been found to have a mental disorder, or has had a recent mental hygiene commitment, should they be 'disarmed?'

by who?

You decide.

I'm serious.

[Peikko 1,575]

Maybe they did, but really, I don't see the 'right to bear arms' as much of a guarantee of freedom from oppression in and of itself in the modern age.

It's not a "guarantee", but it certainly helps. Read this, for example.

What is more important, the group or the gun? Without the gun, the group can succeed, without the group the gun is nothing.

imagine that.

Imagine what? There are two different sets of arguments going on. Whether political oppression is possible whether the citizens have the right to bear arms or not (yes) and whether the gun is the weapon of choice for targeted killings for a good reason (yes).

Edited September 8, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think there is a distinction for driving a car as either driving somewhere innocently or guilty. Guns have a single purpose: to penetrate flesh and either maim or kill. If that isn't obvious then there really isn't a purpose of discussing morality and legality.

Guns are used as a deterrent too, my point being is deal with the gunman not the gun. A madman has a lot of options and its pointless to think if we take the gun out of the equation its all good.

I gotta go

Well as I've said before... we're not talking about an across the board 'taking guns out of the equation' deal here. For every extreme case and crazy out there we can find a weapon down to a carpet fiber if you want. The very clear difference is obvious, like I said- and its in the design of the weapon. I'm sure if you were to do an actual statistical analysis to show frequency of use and result in depriving humans of their lives in a non-bellicose fashion that the intentional use of cars, tractors, RVs, knives, chalk, fingernails, rope, arsenic, flowers, ghecko tails, beer bottles, farts, frying pans, pizza cutters, street signs, cement blocks, pirañas, sharks, etc all added up have NOT been utilized to kill as many people as firearms.

And in those details is where we should be rationalizing our thinking... not in equating things on slippery slopes as if they were all equal.

Well first of all lets put this into perspective. I never said that all these things were comparable like knives,beer bottles and other things you listed. I said deal will the gunman not the gun. His options were plenty even if he didnt have the gun. You commented on something that I was responding to in that nature and took it out of context to make it sound like im comparing all these things as equals when it comes to killing. Then with my equation statement you made it sound like I was suggesting you or others wanted to ban guns when all I was saying is he would of found another way. I was not doing that and this kind of ####### happens a lot here at VJ, point Im making get lost in the attempt to try to write me off as "one of those guys".

So many people turn to the thinking, stricter gun laws when madmen do shite like this, my point being is guns werent his only option. There is plenty of other fast and effective way to kill people.

You have to admit though - this kind of rampage things seems to be peculiar to this country, certainly it seems to happen a lot more regularly than it does in many others (in the UK, Hungerford and Dunblane while several years apart were watershed moments as far as the law was concerned).

I also don't think its any coincidence that firearms are used in the majority of suicides.

I don't have an answer for this, but its certainly interesting.

One thing you can say with certainty however - is that trying to relativise guns in this equation is pretty dishonest.

The simple fact is that the gun makes these things a lot more likely to take place whatever view you have on the right to bear arms. If you have a gun you are much more likely to succeed in killing your targets than with any other non weapon 'tool'. Of course, if you want to randomly kill a lot of people, that is slightly different but even so, the gun is probably right up their along with bombs and the like.

I think that's hard to (honestly) deny.

But I think we should know by now that there is very little honesty where this topic is concerned.

[mawilson 2,133]

If a person has been found to have a mental disorder, or has had a recent mental hygiene commitment, should they be 'disarmed?'

Indiana is the only state that allows its residents to apply for a lifetime license to carry a handgun.

In other states, gun permits need to be renewed every 5 years or so. If a person has been found

to have a mental disorder, his renewal application should probably be denied.

[_Simpson_ 250]

I don't think there is a distinction for driving a car as either driving somewhere innocently or guilty. Guns have a single purpose: to penetrate flesh and either maim or kill. If that isn't obvious then there really isn't a purpose of discussing morality and legality.

Guns are used as a deterrent too, my point being is deal with the gunman not the gun. A madman has a lot of options and its pointless to think if we take the gun out of the equation its all good.

I gotta go

Well as I've said before... we're not talking about an across the board 'taking guns out of the equation' deal here. For every extreme case and crazy out there we can find a weapon down to a carpet fiber if you want. The very clear difference is obvious, like I said- and its in the design of the weapon. I'm sure if you were to do an actual statistical analysis to show frequency of use and result in depriving humans of their lives in a non-bellicose fashion that the intentional use of cars, tractors, RVs, knives, chalk, fingernails, rope, arsenic, flowers, ghecko tails, beer bottles, farts, frying pans, pizza cutters, street signs, cement blocks, pirañas, sharks, etc all added up have NOT been utilized to kill as many people as firearms.

And in those details is where we should be rationalizing our thinking... not in equating things on slippery slopes as if they were all equal.

Well first of all lets put this into perspective. I never said that all these things were comparable like knives,beer bottles and other things you listed. I said deal will the gunman not the gun. His options were plenty even if he didnt have the gun. You commented on something that I was responding to in that nature and took it out of context to make it sound like im comparing all these things as equals when it comes to killing. Then with my equation statement you made it sound like I was suggesting you or others wanted to ban guns when all I was saying is he would of found another way. I was not doing that and this kind of ####### happens a lot here at VJ, point Im making get lost in the attempt to try to write me off as "one of those guys".

So many people turn to the thinking, stricter gun laws when madmen do shite like this, my point being is guns werent his only option. There is plenty of other fast and effective way to kill people.

You have to admit though - this kind of rampage things seems to be peculiar to this country, certainly it seems to happen a lot more regularly than it does in many others (in the UK, Hungerford and Dunblane while several years apart were watershed moments as far as the law was concerned).

I also don't think its any coincidence that firearms are used in the majority of suicides.

I don't have an answer for this, but its certainly interesting.

One thing you can say with certainty however - is that trying to relativise guns in this equation is pretty dishonest.

We do have a problem with guns in this country. 9 out of 10 times its the "bad guy" that does shooting. He legally shouldnt have had a gun to begin with, stricter gun laws a majority of the time effects the law abiding citizens and not the criminal. So to go down that road seems pointless.

Suicides with guns, well yes it is a popular option and one of the easier options. I dont see how in anyway that should affect laws on guns. Plenty of other easy ways to do it. Pills and alcohol for example.

One thing you can say with certainty however - is that trying to relativise guns in this equation is pretty dishonest.

Not sure exactly what your addressing here, I have only said that a madman will find a way considering all the other easy alternatives to guns. I dont think that's dishonest at all.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not sure exactly what your addressing here, I have only said that a madman will find a way considering all the other easy alternatives to guns. I dont think that's dishonest at all.

But again its no coincidence that guns are used by these people a lot (most?) of the time.

That isn't for no reason.

[rebeccajo 14]

If a person has been found to have a mental disorder, or has had a recent mental hygiene commitment, should they be 'disarmed?'

Indiana is the only state that allows its residents to apply for a lifetime license to carry a handgun.

In other states, gun permits need to be renewed every 5 years or so. If a person has been found

to have a mental disorder, his renewal application should probably be denied.

But a mental hygiene commitment isn't a 'finding' of a mental disorder. It's a finding by the mental hygiene commissioner that the person is incapable of functioning safely in society AT THE MOMENT. One deciding factor in commitments is whether or not the patient is a danger to themself or to others. The brief hospitalizations that occur after a commitment are RARELY enough to "cure" the patient - it is just a means to stabilize them until they get into out-patient treatment.

[Ban Hammer 13,895]

If a person has been found to have a mental disorder, or has had a recent mental hygiene commitment, should they be 'disarmed?'

by who?

You decide.

I'm serious.

mkay. yes, rebecca can go take someone's gun away. happy now?

[mawilson 2,133]

If a person has been found to have a mental disorder, or has had a recent mental hygiene commitment, should they be 'disarmed?'

Indiana is the only state that allows its residents to apply for a lifetime license to carry a handgun.

In other states, gun permits need to be renewed every 5 years or so. If a person has been found

to have a mental disorder, his renewal application should probably be denied.

But a mental hygiene commitment isn't a 'finding' of a mental disorder. It's a finding by the mental hygiene commissioner that the person is incapable of functioning safely in society AT THE MOMENT. One deciding factor in commitments is whether or not the patient is a danger to themself or to others. The brief hospitalizations that occur after a commitment are RARELY enough to "cure" the patient - it is just a means to stabilize them until they get into out-patient treatment.

If the person is a danger to others, he should not be released. If he is a danger to himself,

taking away his gun is not going to stop him.

By the way, I don't believe in protecting people from themselves. "Life, liberty and the pursuit

of happiness" should include the right to take your own life. If I want to kill myself, the

government should stay out of it.

Edited September 8, 2009 by mawilson

[Ban Hammer 13,895]

Maybe they did, but really, I don't see the 'right to bear arms' as much of a guarantee of freedom from oppression in and of itself in the modern age.

It's not a "guarantee", but it certainly helps. Read this, for example.

What is more important, the group or the gun? Without the gun, the group can succeed, without the group the gun is nothing.

imagine that.

Imagine what? There are two different sets of arguments going on. Whether political oppression is possible whether the citizens have the right to bear arms or not (yes) and whether the gun is the weapon of choice for targeted killings for a good reason (yes).

i shouldn't throw them so high, that one went over your head.

[HAL 9000 96]

I don't think there is a distinction for driving a car as either driving somewhere innocently or guilty. Guns have a single purpose: to penetrate flesh and either maim or kill. If that isn't obvious then there really isn't a purpose of discussing morality and legality.

Guns are used as a deterrent too, my point being is deal with the gunman not the gun. A madman has a lot of options and its pointless to think if we take the gun out of the equation its all good.

I gotta go

Well as I've said before... we're not talking about an across the board 'taking guns out of the equation' deal here. For every extreme case and crazy out there we can find a weapon down to a carpet fiber if you want. The very clear difference is obvious, like I said- and its in the design of the weapon. I'm sure if you were to do an actual statistical analysis to show frequency of use and result in depriving humans of their lives in a non-bellicose fashion that the intentional use of cars, tractors, RVs, knives, chalk, fingernails, rope, arsenic, flowers, ghecko tails, beer bottles, farts, frying pans, pizza cutters, street signs, cement blocks, pirañas, sharks, etc all added up have NOT been utilized to kill as many people as firearms.

And in those details is where we should be rationalizing our thinking... not in equating things on slippery slopes as if they were all equal.

Well first of all lets put this into perspective. I never said that all these things were comparable like knives,beer bottles and other things you listed. I said deal will the gunman not the gun. His options were plenty even if he didnt have the gun. You commented on something that I was responding to in that nature and took it out of context to make it sound like im comparing all these things as equals when it comes to killing. Then with my equation statement you made it sound like I was suggesting you or others wanted to ban guns when all I was saying is he would of found another way. I was not doing that and this kind of ####### happens a lot here at VJ, the point Im trying to make gets lost in the attempt to try to write me off as "one of those guys".

So many people turn to the thinking, stricter gun laws when madmen do shite like this, my point being is guns werent his only option. There is plenty of other fast and effective way to kill people.

Congratulations. I can agree with you on the out of context part. Sorry about the mix-up.

If by making 'other options' to equate in carnage you mean there is a statistical significance to the carnage created by firearms... then you'd be dead wrong. That's all I pointed out if you missed it.

If a person has been found to have a mental disorder, or has had a recent mental hygiene commitment, should they be 'disarmed?'

PLEASE.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Not sure exactly what your addressing here, I have only said that a madman will find a way considering all the other easy alternatives to guns. I dont think that's dishonest at all.

But again its no coincidence that guns are used by these people a lot (most?) of the time.

That isn't for no reason.

Well yes they do of course they are the easiest means to the end for the most part, I have mentioned that before. My point was never which weapon is getting used the most or trying to argue that all weapons are the same.