Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,287 Year: 5,544/9,624 Month: 569/323 Week: 66/143 Day: 9/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How can we regulate guns ... ?
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 920 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(2)
(1)
Message 121 of 955 (686641)
01-02-2013 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Genomicus
01-02-2013 1:22 PM


Re: the topic is how can we regulate guns ... to reduce gun deaths
Does the federal government have the constitutional right to regulate guns, though?
Does the federal government have the constitutional right to wiretap it's citizens without warrant?
Does the federal government have the constitutional right to indefinitely detain its citizens?
No to both, but they sure as fuck enacted legislation that gives them the power to do it and nobody says a fucking word. People only give a shit about the constitution when its convenient.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Genomicus, posted 01-02-2013 1:22 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Genomicus, posted 01-02-2013 5:36 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 920 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 125 of 955 (686646)
01-02-2013 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Genomicus
01-02-2013 5:36 PM


Re: the topic is how can we regulate guns ... to reduce gun deaths
Pissing and moaning about it on the internet doesn't count. Nothing is being done to change it.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Genomicus, posted 01-02-2013 5:36 PM Genomicus has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 920 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 145 of 955 (686671)
01-02-2013 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by foreveryoung
01-02-2013 6:48 PM


Re: My Ideas for Regulation
The guns come in handy when the government INEVITABLY steps in with heavy handed methods to stop it.
Ahh, so people like you, Crash and faith are going to fight the US government (which would be you fighting the US Army/Navy/Marines/Air Force. Good luck)? You're going to wait until so many of your rights are stripped away that the government takes arm against it's own citizens? You realize 1984 was a ficticious book, not a documentary, right? If you are waiting until they round you up for the gulags, it's too late. Your little arsenal is no match for the US military now, what use do you think it will be with all the money that is poured into the war machine in the future?

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by foreveryoung, posted 01-02-2013 6:48 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by foreveryoung, posted 01-02-2013 7:00 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 920 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 153 of 955 (686679)
01-02-2013 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by foreveryoung
01-02-2013 7:00 PM


Re: My Ideas for Regulation
YOU said it was inevitable..... Or do you think it would be politicians forcing the "heavy hand"?

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by foreveryoung, posted 01-02-2013 7:00 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 920 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(3)
Message 155 of 955 (686681)
01-02-2013 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Rahvin
01-02-2013 7:19 PM


Re: My Ideas for Regulation
The Occupy movement was rather large on the national level (though individual locations were mixed - some very large, some very small).
The same people who clamor on about gun rights are the same people that were calling for the occupy protestors to be shot and calling them dirty scumbags.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Rahvin, posted 01-02-2013 7:19 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Rahvin, posted 01-02-2013 7:26 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 920 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 232 of 955 (686979)
01-06-2013 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Panda
01-06-2013 9:23 AM


Re: Gun show loop hole
Seems to me that it is nearly universally accepted that so much as committing a crime ia a forfeiture of all your rights even if you don't get "caught". All we need is John Rambo to think you might hurt him and he has the right to take your life among other things.
Conversely, the whole lot of you have spoken freely about "criminals" and their acquisition of firearms without really defining what it takes to be considered a criminal. I personally know a few felons that I don't consider criminals and their crime wasn't violent, yet in the eyes of the law (and seemingly the rest of you) they are scumbag criminals that have no rights.
Let me clarify that my usage of you in this reply was not a personal you, Panda.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Panda, posted 01-06-2013 9:23 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Panda, posted 01-06-2013 10:14 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 236 by Jon, posted 01-06-2013 11:44 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 920 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 266 of 955 (687025)
01-06-2013 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Jon
01-06-2013 6:11 PM


Re: Gun show loop hole
Why shouldn't convicted criminals be allowed to purchase guns?
I personally think the "felons cannot buy, legally own or even be in the same household as, firearms" law ought to be modified a bit so that all felons aren't lumped in the same category. As it stands right now someone who is convicted of grand theft (a non violent crime) loses the same rights as someone convicted of murder. At the very least, perhaps non violent offenders ought to still be allowed to own, or even be around, firearms.
What level of 'mental disturbance' should disqualify someone from purchasing a firearm?
I would start with those who have at any point been committed and/or are prescribed narcotics or mood stabilizers.
Who determines whether there is 'mental disturbance'?
Doctors, obviously.
And how far can you go on these restrictions while still not infringing?
It is obviously debatable about there coming a point where something you do, regardless if it is within your control or not, does begin to impact your rights. We cannot just allow mentally hampered individuals roam around doing as the voices in there head suggest if we expect any sort of safe society. Do they need help? Obviously. Do we need to work on how we help them? A million times, yes.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Jon, posted 01-06-2013 6:11 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by NoNukes, posted 01-06-2013 11:25 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 920 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 271 of 955 (687031)
01-06-2013 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by NoNukes
01-06-2013 11:25 PM


Re: Gun show loop hole
No. I should have been more clear. I meant people that were on a constant prescription. Example: my ex is a crazy ass broad. She is clinically bi-polar and manic depressive with fibromyalgia. She is on a constant dose of exactly what I mentioned (mood stabilizers and narcotics). She is generally stable, but has frequent periods of suicidal thoughts and wanting to go to the loony bin. She should NOT be able to get a gun, but she legally can whereas other people who are not crazy that I know are unable to have guns because they are felons, even though their crime was a non-violent one and in no way displayed a proclivity for violence.
By no means do I intend for someone who goes through a "spell" to be in this hypothetical database since I totally understand that some people go through periods of depression. This would be for people who never get out of those periods. These people can live productive lives and do not need to be put away from society, but they shouldn't have easy access to guns, IMO.
It is far from being even close to thought out, but it's an idea for a start.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by NoNukes, posted 01-06-2013 11:25 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by NoNukes, posted 01-07-2013 1:06 AM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 920 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 281 of 955 (687041)
01-07-2013 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by NoNukes
01-07-2013 1:06 AM


Re: Gun show loop hole
Now who maintains this registry.
1) I never said there would be a new registry just for this.
2) I have no idea what method we could use. Like I said, it simply seems like a place to start. If I had that sort of knowledge, I would be doing that for a living instead of posting about it here.
How does the information get into the registry without invading the privacy of people who have no intention of ever buying a gun.
I imagine the same way my medical records are already in digital format and protected by HIPAA. Secondly, people give up way more privacy to play Farmville than they do going to the doctor because they are crazy and want to kill themselves.
How do we prevent the list from being used for hiring purposes, for determining who gets life and health insurance.
The same way that those sorts of things don't already happen. Except: prior medical history already is something insurance companies use to stop you from getting coverage.
How does a person who has never been in an institution demonstrate that when he goes to buy a BFG.
I don't understand this question. Why do I need to prove I've not been institutionalized?
Look, I am merely trying to set some goundwork for the kind of people that OBVIOUSLY have no business owning guns. It is by no means locked tight and ready for public consumption, but it also shouldn't mean that we should then just allow people that have proven to be mentally unstable or prone to violence to have guns. I am also of the opinion that mental health problems need more and better attention. I feel as though we, as a society/species, tend to forget about and/or shun our kind when they show mental problems.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by NoNukes, posted 01-07-2013 1:06 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by NoNukes, posted 01-07-2013 2:58 AM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 920 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 283 of 955 (687043)
01-07-2013 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by xongsmith
01-07-2013 1:30 AM


Re: Gun show loop hole
We should have brought up our children better.
"Sins of our fathers" doesn't strike me as valid justification in rational society, even though I do get your point.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by xongsmith, posted 01-07-2013 1:30 AM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 920 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 288 of 955 (687054)
01-07-2013 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by NoNukes
01-07-2013 2:58 AM


Re: Gun show loop hole
Surely you see the constitutional problem with this position.
No, I don't. I am saying perhaps those that are not mentally fit or who have shown a proclivity towards violence (for a start) should not have the basic "right" of owning a device that's sole purpose is to kill things.
Limits on playing Farmville do not involve the state infringing on a fundamental right.
I was responding to you asking about privacy, not right infringement.
If you aren't going to bother with the details of how your solution will be implemented,
So, if I haven't already thought out every single detail of an obviously complex problem, I shouldn't even think about it, let alone discuss it?
Second, you insinuated that I was of the position that gun buyers need to prove they've never been institutionalized. That is a position that makes no sense to me, nor is it one I have ever stated taking. I am not even sure where you got it since it isn't something we have to do for anything.
then there is no point in wondering whether the implementation will itself trample on people's right.
So then you consider it to be trample on a mentally handicapped persons' freedom/liberty when they are institutionalized?
Let's just not sell guns to anyone who will misuse them.
Ok, so how do you determine who those people are?

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by NoNukes, posted 01-07-2013 2:58 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by NoNukes, posted 01-07-2013 8:48 AM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 920 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 292 of 955 (687059)
01-07-2013 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by NoNukes
01-07-2013 8:48 AM


Re: Gun show loop hole
Yes, but both issues are relevant. If I don't want to give up my privacy, I simply don't play Farmville. But I don't want to trade away one fundamental right (my privacy) in order to use another (owning BFGs).
You've made the gigantic leap that what I am proposing will violate anyone's privacy. When I go to my pharmacy, the person behind the counter can tell me how many refills of what prescription I have. Is that person violating my privacy? Besides, I am not sure I agree that your "privacy" in this case is something so sacred that it is a right. If you have indicated that you are mentally unstable and/or potentially dangerous, why should we, as a society, allow you to walk around with devices that's sole purpose is to kill? Or do you only want to stop drug users and convicted felons who may or may not be convicted of violent crimes from having guns? Do we allow convicted child molesters the privacy of not being in a database so they can be searched for by their neighbors? That's not even the sort of system I am proposing, just noting that shit like that is already in place and most everyone is fine with it.
Perhaps you're right. Perhaps we should just not address the ability of people who have already shown mental instability to acquire guns then, when they go on a murderous rampage (with guns they legally bought) because they are fucked in the head and the proper channels already knew they were fucked in the head, we won't have to wonder why it happened because we'll already know: he was fucked in the head and all the signs were there and everyone knew, we just couldn't stop him from his right to have guns. Good idea.
The issue is that your solution creates more problems which you don't want to discuss.
Isn't that exactly what the fuck I am doing? Discussing it, right now? It seems to me that I am one of the few in this thread that has actually proposed an idea that is in line with the OP: "How can we regulate guns?". The rest of you are just naysaying "nope, nope, nope. Can't do it." without suggesting a damn thing.
I'm asking if that stuff ought to be in a database.
It already is! It's just not searchable by people that sell guns, nor are those people under any obligation to give a fuck if the guy who they are selling a gun to was just yesterday released from the 13th floor for attempting suicide or is right now on anti-psychotic medication. Or both.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by NoNukes, posted 01-07-2013 8:48 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by NoNukes, posted 01-07-2013 11:26 AM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 920 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 293 of 955 (687061)
01-07-2013 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by NoNukes
01-07-2013 8:55 AM


Re: Gun show loop hole
I'm not talking about your criminal background; something I can find that out for just a few dollars. I'm asking about your mental health background. Should that be in NICS?
So are you saying that you are quite fine with ANYONE being able to find out about your criminal background, but fuck off if we allow gun dealers to see a small portion of your medical history?

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by NoNukes, posted 01-07-2013 8:55 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by NoNukes, posted 01-07-2013 11:47 AM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 920 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 294 of 955 (687062)
01-07-2013 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by NoNukes
01-07-2013 2:58 AM


Re: Gun show loop hole
Just wanted to re-address this "question" after re-reading it.
If you aren't going to bother with the details of how your solution will be implemented, then there is no point in wondering whether the implementation will itself trample on people's right. Let's just not sell guns to anyone who will misuse them.
You asked me something that I did not understand, then went on to say something else about it. I said "I don't understand this question." and you took that to mean I had not thought this through or something. You made the accusation that it would be up to the gun purchaser to prove he's not been institutionalized. I don't know where you got that or why you asked that.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by NoNukes, posted 01-07-2013 2:58 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 920 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 301 of 955 (687072)
01-07-2013 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by NoNukes
01-07-2013 11:26 AM


Re: Gun show loop hole
You said that you don't want a registry
I said I wasn't proposing a "new registry". That is not the same as saying I do not want a registry. If it appears that way, then I have not been clear.
that you have no idea how we would keep the information needed to keep the people you have in mind from getting guns.
Certain pertinent information in a persons' medical history would be available to gun sellers. This information would include ONLY whether or not you are on a constant prescription of certain medications. These medications would include those that are primarily prescribed to individuals who have shown a propensity for mental health disorders.
I think that issue is relevant, because unlike you, I do think the privacy concerns are important.
Please don't ascribe positions to me I have not taken. You are now saying that I have made a blanket statement that I don't care about ANY privacy matters and that is untrue.
But we cannot reasonably discuss those concerns because your proposal is just to fuzzy in that area.
I understand this is a debate site, but that doesn't mean you are hindered from having a discussion where you propose counter points as opposed to just trying to shoot holes in my proposals. If that is all you wish to do, then yes, you are right that we cannot reasonably discuss a damn thing.
I'm not convinced that treated mental instability is a good criteria. Most such people are harmless.
So the people who commit these acts and use guns for nefarious purposes are in normal mental condition?
Your proposal already violates privacy.
How?
I'm not going to volunteer for having the state having access to everyone's mental health records.
Who said the state?
But I'm not fine with such a disclosure being used to deny me my right to vote, to work, or any other fundamental right.
Who says that it would? You seem to be assuming an awful lot about what you think my proposal says or is even though I haven't thought it through entirely.....

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by NoNukes, posted 01-07-2013 11:26 AM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Panda, posted 01-07-2013 12:21 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024