• We will be rebooting the server around 4:30 AM ET. We should be back up and running in approximately 15 minutes.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

It's the Guns[W:1198, W:1943]

Status
Not open for further replies.
There's no silver bullet, no single measure that'll solve the problem. There's going to be a bunch of steps taken, and sometimes it's going to involve stepping on individual rights. That Vegas guy for instance, how many rifles did he aquire in just a few months? Dozens, I read. Maybe that ought to raise an alarm. That Cruz guy, maybe there's a way to make that type feel they're being watched and can't get away with it so easily. There was so much failure there it's ridiculous.
Another poster in this thread brought up something that makes sense- absolutely no publicity. None. If caught, the psycho just disappears into the system. If not caught, if killed on the scene, he's never named, no pictures, no interviews with shocked neighbours or classmates.
All those things infringe on rights, none of them alone could make much difference, and no matter what's done you'll never know if it's working or not. Even after a year of no school shootings, no mass killings, you'll never know if your measures are the reason. But those people who knee-jerk against every suggestion, bleating the word "Constitution!" like they've just made themselves impossible to argue with are just saying the occasional mass killing is acceptable. Thoughts and prayers, yes, but don't even think of changing anything.
State legislative buildings are safe, gun-free zones, right? Nobody would be able to smuggle a rifle and couple of handguns and pockets-full of spare magazines and blast away at politicians. Politicians are able to make themselves safe. Why can't they make students safe, too? Too expensive, too much work, unconstitutional?
But we know how this'll play out, don't we.
Unfortunately we do know how it will play out. We've already discussed it. We have already seen it. There isnt a call for reasonable discussion. There is a call by mindless empty headed leftists to DO SOMETHING! BAN SOMETHING!!! PASS A LAW!!!

You know what else is missing from the dialogue? In the last few months there have been several attempted mass shootings that have been thwarted by private citizens and cops. Sometimes armed...sometimes unarmed....but the results have been that would be shooters have been stopped in their tracks. Why isnt THAT being discussed? We need MORE of that. We need MORE people prepared to go on the offensive should a situation occur. Where that happens, shooters are stopped. When shooters are unhindered...bodies pile up and it doesnt matter what kind of gun they use. It doesnt matter how many times they have to reload. It doesnt matter that they have already passed background checks and yes, even mental health screenings.

Yes...the subject of mental health is important and there is resistance to kneejerk laws promoted in the name of 'gun safety' primarily because most of the people that promote mental health laws cant cite what exactly they mean or how they would apply those laws or where they would stop/start/end.

You say there is no discussions and you blame it on conservatives, but you are full of **** and you know it. It is discussed that teachers should be armed and antigun leftists freak out. It is suggested by conservatives that there should be better school security and antigun lefitsts dismiss it because it isnt a gun ban. It has been proposed that they could bring in military veterans and retirees and do everything from pay them a part time salary to let them have tax exempt status as volunteers. There are discussions ongoing, but the only discussions leftists want to hear are gun bans, universal background checks (promoted by the "gunshow loophole" rhetoric but anyone with a pulse and measurable IQ knows their sole intent is to build a weapons database), magazine capacity bans (proven to not be relevant), bumpfire stock bans (because a bumpfire weapon has been used one time in the history of ever), and any other manner of law that has been proven to be ineffective and will target only law abiding gun owners.
 
You don't get to speak for me and millions like me that is for sure

Yes...we will, because we already know what you want, even if you don’t know it yourself yet.
 
Go to the mirror boy

Oooh, the old stand-by, "I know you are, but what am I?"

That one stings, alright. Hard to get happy after that one.
 
Yeah I got your position nailed too

I doubt it. I understand the personality pathology of those who cry out for more gun control measures after tragic events, and I know that they (you) don’t have proper education and knowledge of the current gun control measures and the effectiveness of he new ones being callled for.

I doubt you have figured out the same.
 
Oooh, the old stand-by, "I know you are, but what am I?"

That one stings, alright. Hard to get happy after that one.

I don't have much use for foreigners claiming we need to start infringing on our rights for reasons that I suspect will never be divulged. you have no stake in the issue
 
Lots of butthurt in this thread. Whaa...the article in the op is mean!

It's perhaps a reflection of the garbage that the OP article contained...and apparently concurred with.
 
I doubt it. I understand the personality pathology of those who cry out for more gun control measures after tragic events, and I know that they (you) don’t have proper education and knowledge of the current gun control measures and the effectiveness of he new ones being callled for.

I doubt you have figured out the same.

Thank you for your opinion
 
What, doing something?
Ever hear this advice when you were dithering, "Do something! Even if it's wrong!" It's good advice.
Or do you think nothing should be done? No, no, sorry, you cant be that type. You must realize that something, maybe several things, need to be done. Elsewise it's acceptable that psycho killers occasionally invade schools and slaughter students. And nobody would think that, right?

For me, after reading so many people asking for 'something' and then seeing the proposals for new laws or restrictions...I see things proposed that do not take legal gun owner's safety, lives, into consideration.

It's all about the 'innocent victims.' Yes, we all do care (most of us anyway) but *I* see things being proposed that completely dismiss and disregard *my* safety, my life.

Atho many gun owners, including myself, own guns for recreational purposes, most also keep them to protect themselves and their familes.

And I almost never see *us* considered in these proposals...the impacts on our lives and safety. We are choosing NOT to be the next 'innocent victims,' yet it seems that would be better than non-gun owning people becoming such?
 
You bet it is.

Not really.
another liberal hack of an article only able to be published
because some guys picked up some guess what GUNS.
 
Another poster in this thread brought up something that makes sense- absolutely no publicity. None. If caught, the psycho just disappears into the system. If not caught, if killed on the scene, he's never named, no pictures, no interviews with shocked neighbours or classmates.
.

I've been saying this for years. No names esp. Release the name once when the incident occurs and then if necessary, refer to it by the location, etc. But I also believe that it has to be 100% voluntary from the media...as anything else would be a violation of the 1A (to my knowledge.)

For more on this, the book & movie, "We Need to Talk About Kevin" really highlights how these losers feed off of each other. And how they plan and most are quite intelligent. They are highly motivated and it's hard to stop highly motivated people from doing anything.
 
You know what else is missing from the dialogue? In the last few months there have been several attempted mass shootings that have been thwarted by private citizens and cops. Sometimes armed...sometimes unarmed....but the results have been that would be shooters have been stopped in their tracks. Why isnt THAT being discussed? We need MORE of that. We need MORE people prepared to go on the offensive should a situation occur. Where that happens, shooters are stopped. When shooters are unhindered...bodies pile up and it doesnt matter what kind of gun they use. It doesnt matter how many times they have to reload. It doesnt matter that they have already passed background checks and yes, even mental health screenings.

They did publicize at least 3 different incidents immediately after Parkland, which I thought was positive.

One I posted about, it occured here in WA St where a grandmother turned her grandson in. Got his journal with all his plans in it.
 
Then name the state or the country where your plan currently works

I'll start with #1, America nationally, the repeal of the Volstead Act and its effect on violent crime ending prohibition. Given that you're a troll who never addresses a point quoted, I'll not waste my time explaining the rest to you unless you address this one.

Because generally, you're a waste of time who only engages in baseless insults and never answers questions, arguments or even reads what he is quoting evidently.
 
I'll start with #1, America nationally, the repeal of the Volstead Act and its effect on violent crime ending prohibition. Given that you're a troll who never addresses a point quoted, I'll not waste my time explaining the rest to you unless you address this one.

Because generally, you're a waste of time who only engages in baseless insults and never answers questions, arguments or even reads what he is quoting evidently.

Then let me be clear on your answer (despite the insults).

Your answer is America in 2018. Is that correct?
 
They did publicize at least 3 different incidents immediately after Parkland, which I thought was positive.

One I posted about, it occured here in WA St where a grandmother turned her grandson in. Got his journal with all his plans in it.
They need more of that. Unfortunately it seldom receives national attention, nor does the heroic action of those that step up to stop the shooters.
 
The mental health issue seems like the low hanging fruit, but the problem is that it is a Pandora's Box once you open it and the issue of mental health isnt cut and dried. Nicholas Cruz was interviewed on more than one occasion by mental health professionals and was found to not present enough evidence to be a threat to themselves or others. And once you commit to violating peoples rights in the name of public safety because they are threat to themselves o others, doesnt that mean you would HAVE to take away their car keys? Remove all sharp pointy objects? Access to chemicals? Custody of children? More children have died at the hands of their parents in 3 years than in 36 years of mass shootings COMBINED...so surely child custody is a number one concern where mental health concerns is an issue.

Does that mean you hold people against their will for being judged a threat to themselves or others? Cool...thats what happens NOW. That is the current system. But the thing is, they are released once they are determined to no longer be a threat to themselves or others and there is no longer a justifiable reason to hold them against their will. SO then we are right back to square one.


Just to point out something though. often for people to qualify to get help (if they are poor).. often the only way that the state pays for consistent care is if the person is found to be a danger to themselves or others.

In other words.. there is little help.. UNTIL their mental health reaches a level at which they are a danger. Not very preventative. I have had patients.. whose parents, to get their child into a mental health institution for intensive treatment (that they needed for sever schizophrenia).. those parents LIED and claimed their sons and daughter were a threat.. because otherwise.. they did not qualify for treatment.
 
Just to point out something though. often for people to qualify to get help (if they are poor).. often the only way that the state pays for consistent care is if the person is found to be a danger to themselves or others.

In other words.. there is little help.. UNTIL their mental health reaches a level at which they are a danger. Not very preventative. I have had patients.. whose parents, to get their child into a mental health institution for intensive treatment (that they needed for sever schizophrenia).. those parents LIED and claimed their sons and daughter were a threat.. because otherwise.. they did not qualify for treatment.

They have started recognizing this. I've described it before.

Here a few yrs back we had the Cafe Racer shooting, 5 or 6 killed.

That adult shooter's family had appealed to the county multiple times to commit him. They believed he could be violent. They told them so, but there was nothing the county could do, there was no low to involuntarily commit that guy at that level of diagnosis or behavior.

After that shooting, legislature was proposed and passed that change the standards by which family members could seek help and commitment.
 
Last edited:
Then let me be clear on your answer (despite the insults).

Your answer is America in 2018. Is that correct?

That would be a goalpost move on your behalf.

That said, yes still in 2018 because we suffer under the effects of another prohibition, with the exact same predictable problems, with our current war on drugs. The gang violence associated with it, all those inner city shootings, would be reduced with an end to the War on Drugs. Why do you claim otherwise?

I have my theory: Its an actual solution that has nothing to do with the guns you hate so much.
 
That would be a goalpost move on your behalf.

That said, yes still in 2018 because we suffer under the effects of another prohibition, with the exact same predictable problems, with our current war on drugs. The gang violence associated with it, all those inner city shootings, would be reduced with an end to the War on Drugs. Why do you claim otherwise?

I have my theory: Its an actual solution that has nothing to do with the guns you hate so much.

God you get so much wrong. I love to go shooting.

I am simply trying to make sure I understand your answer. Here is my question again for clarity

Can you name a country THAT currently has low gun deaths and our type of lax gun laws?
 
God you get so much wrong. I love to go shooting.

Claiming to love shooting is irrelevant when it comes to the infringements you support.

I am simply trying to make sure I understand your answer. Here is my question again for clarity

Can you name a country THAT currently has low gun deaths and our type of lax gun laws?

Another goalpost move. You claimed that none of what I said would work, you have failed to support your claim. I said I wouldn't move on from the 1st point regarding prohibition unless you addressed it.

Good day, you are as much of a waste of time as I assumed you'd be.
 
Claiming to love shooting is irrelevant when it comes to the infringements you support.



Another goalpost move. You claimed that none of what I said would work, you have failed to support your claim. I said I wouldn't move on from the 1st point regarding prohibition unless you addressed it.

Good day, you are as much of a waste of time as I assumed you'd be.

I am only asking....as politely and civilly as I can....for you to state where your plan works currently. I am also happy to answer any question you have of me directly and honestly. There is no need for such hostility. If the answer makes you this upset....maybe this forum is not for you.
 
82X more teens die by guns in the US than in any other developed country. I take it those dead mean less to you than the images on a video screen mean to a pedophile.

Hell of a price to pay for your beloved pea shooters. Well, I have news for you. Some of us are sick of it. And, we're coming to take your guns away!

You really should learn about something before you spout off idiotic stuff like this.

Deaths caused by people using guns in the US = roughly 30-35 thousand.

Number of victims due to child pornography = 300,000 to 600,000.

Funny how we never hear you talk about child pornography except to dismiss it in the way that you have in your post. That is sick.

Top Five Countries with Highest Rates of Child Prostitution

According to Crimes Against Children research Centre (CCRC), the numbers of juvenile prostitutes within the United States range from 1,400 to 2.4 million, although most fall between 300,000 and 600,000.

Note: This link is just about child prostitutes...there are far more children being put out there in video's and pictures on the internet every single day. In fact iirc the rate that a new video is put out is around every 30 minutes. Less for pictures. Child Pornography is a multi billion dollar industry.

So yeah, those dead mean less to me because there are far less dead while there are millions viewing child pornography.
 
They have started recognizing this. I've described it before.

Here a few yrs back we had the Cafe Racer shooting, 5 or 6 killed.

That adult shooter's family had appealed to the county multiple times to commit him. They believed he could be violent. They told them so, but there was nothing the county could do, there was no low to involuntarily commit that guy at that level of diagnosis or behavior.

After that shooting, legislature was proposed and passed that change the standards by which family members could seek help and commitment.

the problem is that you are talking about commitment... in which a family member can get someone into a psych facility against their will.

I am talking about getting a person ACCESS to mental health services... Its a matter of insurances, whether private or Medicaid.

If you can identify a kid that say has depression, and get him treatment.. you don't have to worry about commitment.. because it never gets that bad.
 
the problem is that you are talking about commitment... in which a family member can get someone into a psych facility against their will.

I am talking about getting a person ACCESS to mental health services... Its a matter of insurances, whether private or Medicaid.

If you can identify a kid that say has depression, and get him treatment.. you don't have to worry about commitment.. because it never gets that bad.

OK, I can see that. But just because someone's in treatment doesnt mean they arent still a danger.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom