Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 02-17-2011, 11:35 AM  
mohel
 
blucher's Avatar

Keizer, OR
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,383 | Kudos: +123
Images: 99
"Sir, I'm sorry for your loss."

Thank you. I'm an old cuss so I started noticing skewed numbers under Johnson. People seem to have little or no shame because they're still skewing them. Both sides but I have good googlefu so I can check their offerings.

For two years I dated a Manhattan girl living in a good neighborhood. Gunshots were almost a nightly event. The locals insist they're "backfires" (for sanity) but they're still gunshots.

I've simply known too many people I wouldn't trust with a fork acquire firearms. Their behavior reflects on me like it or not. I do not support armed fruitcakes.
__________________

__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2011, 11:57 AM  
mohel
 
blucher's Avatar

Keizer, OR
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,383 | Kudos: +123
Images: 99
Quote:
The intentions here are good, but the road to hell is paved with similar.
Heard that & "slippery slope" and all the other mantras for years. It doesn't alter the fact that people are getting killed by the mentally ill.

I have carried a gun more years than I like to remember. I worked in rough clubs and lived in an inner city ghetto. That was youthful immortality and these days avoidance makes more sense.
__________________

__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2011, 12:09 PM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
I guess it comes down to answering for yourself a few questions:

1. Will more gun laws have a bigger effect on law abiding citizens or law breaking criminals? (key word being law(s))

2. Is the great negative effect on law abiding gun owners going to be worth the minimal (if any) positive effect it will have on gun crime?

3. Who decides what equates to "mentally ill"?
Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2011, 01:42 PM  
mohel
 
blucher's Avatar

Keizer, OR
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,383 | Kudos: +123
Images: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by YelloJeep View Post
2. Is the great negative effect on law abiding gun owners going to be worth the minimal (if any) positive effect it will have on gun crime?
Your "minimal if any" is your own view. Mine is that arming the mentally ill serves no law abiding *sane* gun owner. I do expect gnashing of teeth and wails in the night from those who never should have been armed to begin with.

Essentially you and I want the same thing but see different ways of achieving it. I've watched long enough to say we've tried your way long enough to be convinced of it's futility. I also don't expect any meaningful legislation to occur...yet.
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2011, 01:58 PM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
Quote:
Originally Posted by blucher View Post
..........I've watched long enough to say we've tried your way long enough to be convinced of it's futility. I also don't expect any meaningful legislation to occur...yet.
I do not believe we have tried my way. My way would involve very stiff penalties for our already barely enforced laws.

And I still say, who decides who is "sane"? There may be folks out there afraid to go see a needed therapist because they don't want thier "sanity" questioned... So now they have not recieved needed therapy.

So which is worse, an "insane" person with a gun who is being treated, or an insane person with a gun who has never been treated?
Which one would your law discourage??

Don't get me wrong, I agree that some reasonable safeguards are a good idea. Now reasonable is also subjective. I just think some very important questions need to be answered before adding more laws and regulations.
Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2011, 05:36 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by blucher View Post
Heard that & "slippery slope" and all the other mantras for years. It doesn't alter the fact that people are getting killed by the mentally ill.

I have carried a gun more years than I like to remember. I worked in rough clubs and lived in an inner city ghetto. That was youthful immortality and these days avoidance makes more sense.
Bloomberg isn't talking about avoidance. He's talking about a short-sighted approach to gun control, one that has serious effects on responsible gun owners, and one whose effects on criminals is questionable at best, and non-existent at worst.

That you have heard this "mantra" for years doesn't alter the fact that it is a valid concern. Yes, some people are being killed by the mentally ill. Do you support health care reform that gives these people access to therapy and medication? Do you support jailing people because they are at a higher risk of committing criminal activity, without actually having committed it yet?

Quote:
Originally Posted by YelloJeep View Post
I guess it comes down to answering for yourself a few questions:

1. Will more gun laws have a bigger effect on law abiding citizens or law breaking criminals? (key word being law(s))

2. Is the great negative effect on law abiding gun owners going to be worth the minimal (if any) positive effect it will have on gun crime?

3. Who decides what equates to "mentally ill"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by blucher View Post
Your "minimal if any" is your own view. Mine is that arming the mentally ill serves no law abiding *sane* gun owner. I do expect gnashing of teeth and wails in the night from those who never should have been armed to begin with.

Essentially you and I want the same thing but see different ways of achieving it. I've watched long enough to say we've tried your way long enough to be convinced of it's futility. I also don't expect any meaningful legislation to occur...yet.
You didn't answer his first and third questions. Will the proposed legislation be worth the added burden to responsible gun owners? And who decides what constitutes mental illness?

Sure, there will be gnashing of teeth and wails from those insane few who shouldn't have guns. Screw them. What I'm concerned about is the gnashing of teeth and wails from the responsible gun owners who will be caught in this net along with the mentally ill.

Quote:
Originally Posted by YelloJeep View Post
I do not believe we have tried my way. My way would involve very stiff penalties for our already barely enforced laws.

And I still say, who decides who is "sane"? There may be folks out there afraid to go see a needed therapist because they don't want thier "sanity" questioned... So now they have not recieved needed therapy.

So which is worse, an "insane" person with a gun who is being treated, or an insane person with a gun who has never been treated?
Which one would your law discourage??

Don't get me wrong, I agree that some reasonable safeguards are a good idea. Now reasonable is also subjective. I just think some very important questions need to be answered before adding more laws and regulations.
I think it comes down to personal responsibility. It sucks that bad people exist. It sucks worse when good people have their motives and integrity questioned when they choose to secure themselves against those bad people. It sucks worse when good people have to ask permission to defend themselves. Self defense is not a privilege handed out by the state; it is a fundamental human right. Handing it away in some futile attempt at stopping an ill-defined group of people from committing one particular type of violent crime? That borders on insanity itself.

Go fight against drunk drivers. I think they kill more innocent people every minute than guns do in a week. The vast majority of gun owners keep and bear their arms responsibly. Nobody drinks and drives responsibly. Not once, not ever.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2011, 07:33 PM  
Senior Member
 
neophyte's Avatar

Charlotte, North Carolina
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 668 | Kudos: +12
additional information

20,000 gun laws

http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/pu...s/gunbook4.pdf

rivalarrival: Sir, like it or not; we agree.

'quote': Bloomberg isn't talking about avoidance. He's talking about a short-sighted approach to gun control, one that has serious effects on responsible gun owners, and one whose effects on criminals is questionable at best, and non-existent at worst.

continued:

I think it comes down to personal responsibility. It sucks that bad people exist. It sucks worse when good people have their motives and integrity questioned when they choose to secure themselves against those bad people. It sucks worse when good people have to ask permission to defend themselves. Self defense is not a privilege handed out by the state; it is a fundamental human right. Handing it away in some futile attempt at stopping an ill-defined group of people from committing one particular type of violent crime? That borders on insanity itself.

Go fight against drunk drivers. I think they kill more innocent people every minute than guns do in a week. The vast majority of gun owners keep and bear their arms responsibly. Nobody drinks and drives responsibly. Not once, not ever
__________________

__________________
Craig
"We have never seen anything like this.? Mark 2:12
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.