A liberal against gun control

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by 7960

[7960]
he's a model citizen, but because he was taking prozac he should be banned from owning a gun?

I don't know. Maybe it should at least be looked into.

Normal people don't walk into a classroom and start shooting people. Maybe if he had to undergo psyche profiling something would have come up.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Wait, what? How does that not conform to what I posted?

I have said nothing about restricting responsible, law abiding citizens.

I think forcing someone to have a "psyche test" before they purchase a firearm is restricting law abiding citizens.

Crimes committed by guns gotten through legal channels is statistically insignificant compared to those gotten through ill means. We aren't attacking the issue correctly.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Scrum

I don't know. Maybe it should at least be looked into.

Normal people don't walk into a classroom and start shooting people. Maybe if he had to undergo psyche profiling something would have come up.

And maybe not.

Maybe if he was denied he would have purchased one off the streets.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Scrum

I don't know. Maybe it should at least be looked into.

Normal people don't walk into a classroom and start shooting people. Maybe if he had to undergo psyche profiling something would have come up.

I've got about 19 ways this could go:

-and maybe something wouldn't have..........but it should be looked into

-do people need a "psyche profile" (whatever that means) because they want a driver's license?

-should people need a "psyche profile" before joining a religion? or before speaking freely? or before requesting a lawyer?

[hsmith]

None of us want crazy people buying guns, nor do we want violent felons buying guns.

But if there is something that qualifies you from not being able to buy one (you are nuts), it will get picked up on much sooner than the time you turn 21.

Cho's incidents should have been on file from his time in the happy house, but they weren't.

The state should have to prove your are a nut ball if they want to restrict your rights. This is the same as asking you to go on trial against yourself. If there is a problem with you, they should have to provide the evidence.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by hsmith

And it could easily be said that if an armed student was in the classroom that the violence would have been stopped a lot sooner. But that doesn't conform to your political view.

Crazy people shouldn't have guns nor should violent criminals.

Unless a licensed doctor says you shouldn't be near a firearm your rights should not be restricted. Just because someone was on Zoloft once or had a suicidal thought doesn't mean they are a danger. These blanket laws are EXTREMELY dangerous.

suicidal thoughts are not written down on your general medical records...unless you are so extreme it becomes an issue you are nearly committed for...

and brief anti-depressant usage is not usually considered anything...nor have i seen anyone say "the brightline should be if anyone ever popped a prozac"

so these are all strawmen...again

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Scrum

I don't know. Maybe it should at least be looked into.

Normal people don't walk into a classroom and start shooting people. Maybe if he had to undergo psyche profiling something would have come up.

I think we should start somewhere like when you sign up with the SS, you take a basic psyche test to see if you'd fit in the armed services

the guy at VTech would have flunked out of that...and it's non-intrusive since you are showing up yourself and it's basically trying to weed out wackos from the army...not trying to restrict arm sales

and if they ruled you weren't stable, bonus for you because you'd be exempt from a draft...that'll come in handy when we invade Iran/Syria/Venezuela

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Scrum

I think you can't mix "gun control" with "banning guns" They are separate things.

I have no problem with licensing and I think we should do more to make sure the wrong people aren't packing. Psyche tests, background checks, medical information, all of these things should be looked at before you are allowed to own.
I know that won't eliminate problems, but at least we should do everything possible to make sure only responsible citizens have access to guns.

Yeah, all those criminals are going to go register their weapons. You are simply advocating we make something into a victimless crime. Why should someone be punished when they have not harmed anyone else? People should be allowed to own a weapon without having to register it.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I don't see how saying people should have gun safes and store their guns safely is somehow evil gun control

Or as mentioned "totalitarian"

Because it is a victimless crime.

How helpful is it to have a gun in a gun safe when someone is threatening you?

It is totalitarian, because people would get punished even though no one was harmed.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Scrum

To perhaps stop something like what happened at NIU. The shooter was unstable but had access to firearms through legal channels.

Fear. This is the only reasoning behind all victimless crimes. You have no proof that psychological exams would reduce the number of shootings.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

The 2nd amendment gives the mentally unstable the right to guns

If they are not institutionalized, then yes.

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

My fucking christ some people are insane about how far "gun rights" go

My god, some people are insane about using fear to promote victimless crimes, even though they have absolutely no proof, that is zilch, that it actually would prevent others from harming others.

[illavbill]

I'm a liberal and my AK, 12GA, and .45 are just waiting for someone to come try and steal my shit or try to kill me

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Dispatcher

I am a liberal and proud of it. I hate guns and I hate hunters...not because they kill deer, but because they enjoy doing it so much.

But also as a realist, I know that we can't protect ourselves if only the bad guys have guns.

That leaves 2 choices...

A. nobody has guns

B. everyone has guns

I don't get your choices?

Making Guns illegal will not stop everyone from having guns, only lawful citizens.

Allowing Guns to be legal on a persons property does not mean everyone has guns or even close. It simply makes it a legal choice.

If crime is kept low, and private gun owners helps that as you suggest, then more people will option not to have them. You just don't want to lower those numbers way down because of gun laws. That would be of great benefit to the criminal in any area. And crime would go up.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by illavbill

I'm a liberal and my AK, 12GA, and .45 are just waiting for someone to come try and steal my shit or try to kill me

The anti-Gun attitude is not universal with liberals and certainly not with Democrats. Just certain types who are more likely to be stubborn left ideologues on almost all issues. Not real liberal thinkers if you get my drift?

Obama has been a strong gun control advocate and that is one of his problems in States like Pennsylvania where you have many Democrat gun owners going back generations.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Because it is a victimless crime.

How helpful is it to have a gun in a gun safe when someone is threatening you?

It is totalitarian, because people would get punished even though no one was harmed.

There are many people who can take off a trigger lock in 3 seconds

i've seen a friend who works for the feds do it

please tell me that from the time you hear a noise at the other end of your house, you need less than 3 seconds?

Whoever thinks they do needs to stop living in action movies designed for 12 year olds

I've read literally thousands of police reports, crimes happen two ways:

1) The person has many minutes, many times hours, to prepare after there is a hint of serious danger
2) The person never saw it coming and didn't even have a fraction of a second...one minute he is eating ice cream the next minute someone behind him he never saw blew his brains out

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

There are many people who can take off a trigger lock in 3 seconds

I know somebody that can throw 7 clay targets in the air with one hand and bust each one individually with a pump shotgun.

I can't.

I could get a trigger guard off in a few seconds.... if I don't fumble in the dark with all the adrenaline while simultaneously concentrating on ranging my target.

That few seconds may cost me my life.

You may not HAVE 3 seconds to unlock the pistol before using.
Two things that I get clearly from your posts is that you have never been in a life threatening altercation, and you believe that people are the property of the state.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Yeah, all those criminals are going to go register their weapons. You are simply advocating we make something into a victimless crime. Why should someone be punished when they have not harmed anyone else? People should be allowed to own a weapon without having to register it.

Alrighty then.

I was proposing something that I feel would be a better alternative than banning guns totally which is something people are pushing for in this state.

If you would rather argue for zero restrictions instead of some sort of compromise like i'm looking for, so be it. It's never going to happen.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Alrighty then.

I was proposing something that I feel would be a better alternative than banning guns totally which is something people are pushing for in this state.

If you would rather argue for zero restrictions instead of some sort of compromise like i'm looking for, so be it. It's never going to happen.

Would you agree that we aren't properly using the laws we already have to prosecute criminals who use guns in violent crimes?

I personally think there are more than enough laws on the books that deal with these issues. The problem is, we aren't tossing these people in jails long enough to punish them (nor are jails actually working). Either judges give jokes for sentences or these people get out to early due to probation.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by hsmith

Would you agree that we aren't properly using the laws we already have to prosecute criminals who use guns in violent crimes?

I personally think there are more than enough laws on the books that deal with these issues. The problem is, we aren't tossing these people in jails long enough to punish them (nor are jails actually working). Either judges give jokes for sentences or these people get out to early due to probation.

Which can probably be partially tied to another victimless crime, drug laws. Which can also be tied directly back to increased use of guns in violent crimes.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by hsmith

Would you agree that we aren't properly using the laws we already have to prosecute criminals who use guns in violent crimes?

Absolutely.

But I would still like a more stringent screening process for those who can legally purchase.

Originally Posted by hsmith

I personally think there are more than enough laws on the books that deal with these issues. The problem is, we aren't tossing these people in jails long enough to punish them (nor are jails actually working). Either judges give jokes for sentences or these people get out to early due to probation.

I would be happy if we tripled sentences across the board for violent crimes. Our correctional system is a joke.

Off topic, but maybe if we didn't fill our jails with people who are only guilty of using drugs we would have enough room to keep the scumbags in for their full time.