Gun Control

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Would anyone here really be confident you'd pass 'psychological screening' ?

Are you sure ?

I am pretty sure I wouldn't have (at least not the type of one I would advocate for gun ownership) at points. I would now. While I know for a fact that I was not a danger to either myself or others, I also recognize the fact that somebody who is could easily have displayed similar psychological issues to what I went through. And I would rather not have them have guns, even with the possibility of a false positive.

And frankly, despite your attempts to keep the focus on me, I will not be ashamed about any of this.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

I'm getting the impression that you are less interested in hashing about facts as you are about just using the word.

People dealing with major mood disorders or with cluster A, B, or serious cluster C personality disorders should not have guns.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by GatorAvatar

Let's say you had a choice: either have your child in a class in Connecticut attacked by gunman with 3 guns (30 killed) or a class in China where gunman attacked children with knife (22 injured), what would you choose?

Well that's a no-brainer. I'd rather have my kids going to school in Connecticut than in China. Who wouldn't?

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

People dealing with major mood disorders or with cluster A, B, or serious cluster C personality disorders should not have guns.

Maybe not but unfortunately a lot of them already do. That being the case, why would anyone suggest that I should turn in mine?

It's too late. That is the unavoidable fact that no one seems to willing to confront. This isn't like England where they outlawed handguns then went around and collected all 162,000 of them. 162,000? Ha!

This ain't England. We've got the highest gun ownership rate in the world, by far. Considering the extent to which people prefer to keep such matters private I suspect the real number is higher than any survey results would indicate, but estimates are that there are more than 270 million privately-owned guns in America.

So that's we have do deal with when we talk about gun "control." The truth is, it's simply too late to control it. That being the case, why would anyone suggest that I should turn in mine?

[philnotfil]

For those who don't want restrictions on Americans having guns, but do want restrictions on Iran having nuclear weapons, what is the difference?

[PIMking]

Yaah lets add more laws that take more tax money to enforce that only hinder us who obey the laws in the first place.

the douche killed his mom and stole her weapons, he didn't buy them, he stole them.

I'm sorry the biggest gun related shooting massacre will be if the government aka Obama and company try to take weapons from those who legally own a weapon.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

For those who don't want restrictions on Americans having guns, but do want restrictions on Iran having nuclear weapons, what is the difference?

Seriously?

I thought you might give it a rest with the bad analogies after you compared the concept of gun control to having to take your shoes off at the airport. As someone else pointed out in response to that one, the TSA doesn't keep your shoes.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

Maybe not but unfortunately a lot of them already do. That being the case, why would anyone suggest that I should turn in mine?

It's too late. That is the unavoidable fact that no one seems to willing to confront. This isn't like England where they outlawed handguns then went around and collected all 162,000 of them. 162,000? Ha!

This ain't England. We've got the highest gun ownership rate in the world, by far. Considering the extent to which people prefer to keep such matters private I suspect the real number is higher than any survey results would indicate, but estimates are that there are more than 270 million privately-owned guns in America.

So that's we have do deal with when we talk about gun "control." The truth is, it's simply too late to control it. That being the case, why would anyone suggest that I should turn in mine?

I disagree with making everybody turn their guns in involuntarily. I think we should have programs where people can give them up voluntarily with no questions asked (as many local communities do). I also think we need to majorly revamp the registration system which would involve psychological screenings. People with legal guns need to go through the process of getting a new license and demonstrating that they are psychologically capable of continuing to own the gun. During this process, they should also be informed of new requirements for storage of guns and that they will be held responsible if their gun is stolen if proper storage methods to ensure that their gun is not stolen are not undertaken (ie. no leaving your gun in a drawer).

Black market gun trade needs to also be more closely monitored. If we can lower the number of guns floating around, the free market will naturally lower the number of legal guns as well. In turn, this will further lower the number of guns available for incidents like this (where the person stole legal guns to commit a crime).

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

I disagree with making everybody turn their guns in involuntarily. I think we should have programs where people can give them up voluntarily with no questions asked (as many local communities do). I also think we need to majorly revamp the registration system which would involve psychological screenings. People with legal guns need to go through the process of getting a new license and demonstrating that they are psychologically capable of continuing to own the gun. During this process, they should also be informed of new requirements for storage of guns and that they will be held responsible if their gun is stolen if proper storage methods to ensure that their gun is not stolen are not undertaken (ie. no leaving your gun in a drawer).

Black market gun trade needs to also be more closely monitored. If we can lower the number of guns floating around, the free market will naturally lower the number of legal guns as well. In turn, this will further lower the number of guns available for incidents like this (where the person stole legal guns to commit a crime).

lol. Like our friend Dave likes to say...what color is the sky in your world?

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

Seriously?

I thought you might give it a rest with the bad analogies after you compared the concept of gun control to having to take your shoes off at the airport. As someone else pointed out in response to that one, the TSA doesn't keep your shoes.

Seriously.

I think the common question is, "why don't we take cars away from everyone else when a drunk driver kills someone?" The response intending to make people realize that the problem isn't the tool used to kill, but the person doing the killing. Or am I getting the wrong message out of that question?

Back to Iran, if we as individuals have the right to defend ourselves, why do countries, being the collective will of individuals, not have that right?

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

lol. Like our friend Dave likes to say...what color is the sky in your world?

Grey today. How about yours? BTW, mockery without substance lowers you, as it does him. And frankly, with you, that is difficult.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

Seriously.

I think the common question is, "why don't we take cars away from everyone else when a drunk driver kills someone?" The response intending to make people realize that the problem isn't the tool used to kill, but the person doing the killing. Or am I getting the wrong message out of that question?

Back to Iran, if we as individuals have the right to defend ourselves, why do countries, being the collective will of individuals, not have that right?

I've brought this up before. If more guns = less crime, then why doesnt that apply to nuclear arms & militarization? Why is the world more dangerous when other countries engage in arms races?

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

Seriously.

I think the common question is, "why don't we take cars away from everyone else when a drunk driver kills someone?" The response intending to make people realize that the problem isn't the tool used to kill, but the person doing the killing. Or am I getting the wrong message out of that question?

Back to Iran, if we as individuals have the right to defend ourselves, why do countries, being the collective will of individuals, not have that right?

First of all, I don't think the policies of the Iranian government represent the "collective will" of all individuals in Iran, do you?

More to your point, such as it is, the Iranian government has openly threatened to obliterate Israel, and now they are seeking nuclear weapons. If I openly threatened to kill you and was consequently prosecuted and convicted for it - in the same way that Iran has been prosecuted, "convicted" and sanctioned by the United Nations and other multinational entities - then I wouldn't be legally allowed to buy a gun in most U.S. states, if not all.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I've brought this up before. If more guns = less crime, then why doesnt that apply to nuclear arms & militarization? Why is the world more dangerous when other countries engage in arms races?

Weird since we never had a nuclear war between us and the soviets...

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

I think the common question is, "why don't we take cars away from everyone else when a drunk driver kills someone?" The response intending to make people realize that the problem isn't the tool used to kill, but the person doing the killing. Or am I getting the wrong message out of that question?

I think the idea is that it's not the fault of the vehicle, it's the fault of the driver. You can't legislate a way to keep drunks out of vehicles. It has to be a process of reasonable alternatives and education. Still, it's much easier to identify unsafe behavior of whether or not someone is able to get behind the wheel...that makes it much less excusable for lethal accidents to occur. Why isn't our society more focused on reducing the number of dangerous drivers as opposed to the number of dangerous gun-toters? It's very clearly a more solvable problem.

On a side note, I recently asked an ASO to check my BAC to see if I was sufficient to drive, and they refused saying that they would only check me if they had pulled me over. Strange.

Originally Posted by philnotfil

Back to Iran, if we as individuals have the right to defend ourselves, why do countries, being the collective will of individuals, not have that right?

Different level of defense; your question is a valid one, just not sure how it relates to the idea of "gun control."

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[DeanMeadGator]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

I am pretty sure I wouldn't have (at least not the type of one I would advocate for gun ownership) at points. I would now. While I know for a fact that I was not a danger to either myself or others, I also recognize the fact that somebody who is could easily have displayed similar psychological issues to what I went through. And I would rather not have them have guns, even with the possibility of a false positive.

And frankly, despite your attempts to keep the focus on me, I will not be ashamed about any of this.

The gun control issue is a distraction from the real problem, which no one seems to address.

What is happening in our society that precipates such violent, horrific and evil acts? When I was a kid, such violence simply did not exist. The Charles Manson slayings (which took place when I was in college) caused outright horror in America because nothing like it had happened before.

What has changed since I was a child?

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

First of all, I don't think the policies of the Iranian government represent the "collective will" of all individuals in Iran, do you?

No. Which is why I didn't say that it did

More to your point, such as it is, the Iranian government has openly threatened to obliterate Israel, and now they are seeking nuclear weapons. If I openly threatened to kill you and was consequently prosecuted and convicted for it - in the same way that Iran has been prosecuted, "convicted" and sanctioned by the United Nations and other multinational entities - then I wouldn't be legally allowed to buy a gun in most U.S. states, if not all.

Excellent response.

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

I think the idea is that it's not the fault of the vehicle, it's the fault of the driver.

That's what I thought it was too.

You can't legislate a way to keep drunks out of vehicles. It has to be a process of reasonable alternatives and education. Still, it's much easier to identify unsafe behavior of whether or not someone is able to get behind the wheel...that makes it much less excusable for lethal accidents to occur. Why isn't our society more focused on reducing the number of dangerous drivers as opposed to the number of dangerous gun-toters? It's very clearly a more solvable problem.

Breathalyzer lockouts are a good start, but yes.

Different level of defense; your question is a valid one, just not sure how it relates to the idea of "gun control."

Me neither, but this seemed those most appropriate thread.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

I am pretty sure I wouldn't have (at least not the type of one I would advocate for gun ownership) at points. I would now. While I know for a fact that I was not a danger to either myself or others, I also recognize the fact that somebody who is could easily have displayed similar psychological issues to what I went through. And I would rather not have them have guns, even with the possibility of a false positive.

And frankly, despite your attempts to keep the focus on me, I will not be ashamed about any of this.

Why not keep the focus on you ? Between the two of us, I'm not the one who wants to pry into people's foibles and grab their guns. You're the one who bears watching.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Why not keep the focus on you ? Between the two of us, I'm not the one who wants to pry into people's foibles and grab their guns. You're the one who bears watching.

And you are the one who wants mentally ill people armed to the teeth. Maybe you bear watching too.