| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/28/2015 04:46:50 AM · #76 |
| How did my statement "I could see where it might" turn into an immovable assurance of fact in your mind jagar? OMG, have you ever considered that I'm speculating because I don't know, but was asked to guess by you? |
|
|
|
08/28/2015 05:23:24 AM · #77 |
I agree with that article. Don't you?
I share your pessimism about the current state of affairs, I just don't share your optimism about the solution.
Message edited by author 2015-08-28 05:25:16. |
|
|
|
08/28/2015 07:39:42 AM · #78 |
| Cory....."Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt". Please proceed, governor...... |
|
|
|
08/28/2015 08:06:37 AM · #79 |
| A fair article. Sadly, I think we will go down the path of gun bans, all I wish is that there was a failure clause in the law, where it would be automatically revoked if the intended effect was not attained. |
|
|
|
08/28/2015 08:28:51 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by Cory:
A fair article. Sadly, I think we will go down the path of gun bans, all I wish is that there was a failure clause in the law, where it would be automatically revoked if the intended effect was not attained. |
We have gun controls in this country (as they also do in several others) and yet people still have the right to acquire guns. While it is true that on a per capita basis you folks own three times the number of guns that we do, the really noticeable difference is in the number of deaths cause by these weapons.
Ray |
|
|
|
08/28/2015 09:24:15 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Cory:
A fair article. Sadly, I think we will go down the path of gun bans, all I wish is that there was a failure clause in the law, where it would be automatically revoked if the intended effect was not attained. |
We have gun controls in this country (as they also do in several others) and yet people still have the right to acquire guns. While it is true that on a per capita basis you folks own three times the number of guns that we do, the really noticeable difference is in the number of deaths cause by these weapons.
Ray |
As I've said, I think it will work differently here, I could be wrong, but there's only one way to find out. |
|
|
|
08/28/2015 11:15:36 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I just don't share your optimism about the solution. |
The solution is supported by mountains of empirical evidence demonstrating efficacy around the world and even within this country. Your lack of optimism is not. |
|
|
|
08/28/2015 01:51:37 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Cory:
I just don't share your optimism about the solution. |
The solution is supported by mountains of empirical evidence demonstrating efficacy around the world and even within this country. Your lack of optimism is not. |
And yet I may still be right. |
|
|
|
08/28/2015 02:18:01 PM · #84 |
| C'mon, Cory... There's just no truly rational argument FOR an armed population and ample arguments against it. All you're saying is that things are so f****d up that you don't think we can ever fix 'em. That's not an argument FOR anything, it's just defeatism. |
|
|
|
08/28/2015 02:25:37 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
C'mon, Cory... There's just no truly rational argument FOR an armed population and ample arguments against it. All you're saying is that things are so f****d up that you don't think we can ever fix 'em. That's not an argument FOR anything, it's just defeatism. |
Where's the "like" button? |
|
|
|
08/28/2015 02:54:29 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
C'mon, Cory... There's just no truly rational argument FOR an armed population and ample arguments against it. All you're saying is that things are so f****d up that you don't think we can ever fix 'em. That's not an argument FOR anything, it's just defeatism. |
If you hired a contractor to work on your house, and he screwed up five things, got two right, and wanted to start another project, what would your response be?
Yes, I realize the roof is leaking, but please put all the windows back in the house first please. |
|
|
|
08/28/2015 03:05:18 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
C'mon, Cory... There's just no truly rational argument FOR an armed population and ample arguments against it. All you're saying is that things are so f****d up that you don't think we can ever fix 'em. That's not an argument FOR anything, it's just defeatism. |
If you hired a contractor to work on your house, and he screwed up five things, got two right, and wanted to start another project, what would your response be?
Yes, I realize the roof is leaking, but please put all the windows back in the house first please. |
Using your own analogy, I'd be inclined to say the leaking roof is the culture of violence, and the broken windows are the lack of rational gun control, so I agree with you 100% |
|
|
|
08/28/2015 03:43:45 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by Cory:
If you hired a contractor to work on your house, and he screwed up five things, got two right, and wanted to start another project, what would your response be? |
Be thankful he screwed up five things with a hammer instead of a gun?
The government restricted access to automatic weapons and gun violence with automatic weapons practically disappeared. The NRA promoted lax gun laws and gun violence increased in those areas even as overall violence declined. You express doubt that the first approach can have an impact and confidence that the latter works. |
|
|
|
08/28/2015 08:36:21 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by Cory:
If you hired a contractor to work on your house, and he screwed up five things, got two right... |
...you'd have the best contractor in New England. |
|
|
|
08/28/2015 08:54:45 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by Cory:
If you hired a contractor to work on your house, and he screwed up five things, got two right... |
...you'd have the best contractor in New England. |
Beautiful! |
|
|
|
08/28/2015 09:09:35 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by Cory:
If you hired a contractor to work on your house, and he screwed up five things, got two right... |
...you'd have the best contractor in New England. |
Beautiful! |
YES! We have our experiences with those, do Penny and I :-) |
|
|
|
08/31/2015 03:37:03 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Thing is, I object to the 'Someone couldn't control themselves with a gun, so now no-one gets guns anymore' approach. |
That's an oversimplification, and you know it. There just need to be some more safeguards in place. Safeguards any responsible gun owner who's tired of being lumped in with the wackos should stand behind.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
And yet the only ones to propose such a "solution" seem to be the gun-rights defenders. |
Originally posted by Cory:
Logical conclusion. I'm pretty sure that it will start with "small, common sense restrictions" and in twenty years what seemed crazy will be heralded as common sense. |
Or maybe, perish the thought, some of these incremental steps could be enacted and gun related violence could be reduced, and perhaps in some cases, avoided.
Hey, why don't I scare the crap out of all of ya?
I have a .204 that I bought for varmint control. We have issues with squirrels and groundhogs at my girlfriend's place, so I decided that was a reasonable step. I filled out the forms, and was rejected because of some legal issues I have had......(Some of you may remember me getting charged with two felonies for being in an abandoned state transportation building taking photographs a couple years back.) I went through a whole bunch of legal hoops getting my record cleared.......the felonies, and crimes in toto were supposed to be expunged once I served my probation and completed an ARD program. So I went through the legal grief, got it cleared, went to Gander Mountain, and filled out my paperwork again. While I was there, some guy came in and bought a 9mm. I asked what was involved with that and was my clean background check suitable for a handgun. The clerk said, "Of course.". So, just because I could, I bought a Ruger 9mm automatic (A misnomer, as it's truly semi-automatic, but it differs from a revolver in that it has a clip that holds 17 cartridges.). I can't shoot the thing worth beans and other than shooting it at targets, it's pretty much irrelevant. I don't really want it under my pillow, and as I don't need someone finding it, I have it securely stowed away. I have zero training, and really don't know how to get it without Googling to find out how to become trained in its usage.
Now here's the scary part.....
My life has pretty much sucked lately. I am on medication for anxiety & depression and have been for a half a decade. In the last year, I have lost two jobs, and not due to much more than my bosses pretty much deciding they don't want me around. I have thought about the easy availability of my pistol to resolve the issue once and for all. I pretty much love life, and as a generally resourceful guy, I'm trying not to spend too much time thinking about a way out. I'm pretty sure I should sell the damn pistol.
So.....
Should there be some kind of screening for different types of firearms? Should people with certain types of psychological issues perhaps be screened, and possibly be deterred from purchasing a firearm? What about innocents? Anxiety??? What if my neighbor threatens me? Or just pisses me off?
But it's my RIGHT to have this pistol, correct?
Oddly, it doesn't really make sense to me that I souldn't have had to go through some fairly serious and rigorous procedures before I'm just turned loose with this thing, don't you think?
Please don't see this as a cry for help. I debated this aspect of my opinions and putting myself out there for a while. I'm not going to do anything stupid, and yeah......I am going to sell the damn thing.
I am perfectly open to being the object lesson ping-pong ball to be slapped back and forth in the discussion. But can we at least try and be constructive, and since, at least theoretically, I'm one of the family, can both camps try and see each others' point of view and be nicer?
Message edited by author 2015-08-31 15:48:16.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2015 03:47:29 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
... can both camps try and see each others' point of view and be nicer? |
In which case we'd need fewer guns ... :-) |
|
|
|
09/01/2015 01:12:13 PM · #94 |
“Should there be some kind of screening for different types of firearms?”
There should be screening for EVERY type of firearm. You just indicated the reasons why. There should also be, yesâ€Â¦a LAWâ€Â¦prohibiting the manufacture, marketing and sale of firearms to CHILDREN. Parents engaged in teaching their children to kill, or who make a firearm available to their children by “forgetting” and leaving it on the coffee table, should be fined and imprisoned, and the gun removed. Permanently.
“Should people with certain types of psychological issues perhaps be screened, and possibly be deterred from purchasing a firearm?”
Yes. Anyone with a good reason why NOT, please show yourselves. I’d love to hear your spiel.
“What if my neighbor threatens me? Or just pisses me off? “
Walk away?
“Oddly, it doesn't really make sense to me that I shouldn't have had to go through some fairly serious and rigorous procedures before I'm just turned loose with this thing, don't you think? “
If anyone disagrees that Jeb should NOT have had to go through some serious “procedures” with his history of bad judgment and depression, please tell us why.
“I'm not going to do anything stupid,”
Isn’t that what they all say?
---------------------------------------------------------------
I know Jeb not at all. Many of you do, and I hope you’ll chime in. For all I know, he’s pulling my chain. But, in the event he isn’t and his sad story is true, I hope, Jebâ€Â¦..that you’ll accept my condolences and my support for whatever you’re doing to recover and enjoy your life again. You already know that you can ALWAYS find something or someone worth living for. The “Survival Instinct” is built in to us for a reason and it no longer involves grizzly bears chasing us through the woods.
Considering our first contentious wrangling over the subject of “hunting” in another thread, I find this post sad, scary and really interesting.
Some of us believe that killing for sport is related not necessarily to a violent temperament, but to something more complex. Maybe some kind of “narcissistic exhilaration”, out-of-whack anger issues, paranoia, a need to dominateâ€Â¦something or someone. Whatever it is in an individual, it seems logical to assume that if you put a gun in that person's hand, bad things’re gonna happen. Jeb must realize this too in re his promise to “sell the damn thing.” Human beings might get in the way at the wrong time.
Jeb, I doubt you read this far (you made it clear you’d have nothing else to do with me). But, if you’re here and playing some huge game, you win.
If not, I’m glad that you felt you could spill your guts with the good people at DPC. I want you to be happy again, like everyone else. And, I want you NOT to have a gun in your hand until you’re well again...despite your “rights”. Good luck to you.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2015 11:24:16 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
We have gun controls in this country (as they also do in several others)
Ray |
The US has 10's of thousands of gun control laws at the local, state, and national level.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2015 12:07:31 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by Erastus:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
We have gun controls in this country (as they also do in several others)
Ray |
The US has 10's of thousands of gun control laws at the local, state, and national level. |
Which (despite your likely exaggeration) is precisely the problem -- you can't expect any kind of gun control law to work when it can be evaded by driving a few miles across an unsecured border. |
|
|
|
09/02/2015 08:14:08 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Should there be some kind of screening for different types of firearms? |
Originally posted by Luciemac:
There should be screening for EVERY type of firearm. You just indicated the reasons why. |
There are some in place.......it just seems to me that some tightening up, for reasons of safety & common sense, is in order.
There are different sets of restrictions on automatic rifles, handguns, and rifles. But none of these restrictions address whether or not the buyer should be allowed to purchase same.
Why shouldn't there be a psychological screening? And how about different levels of qualifications for the different levels of firearms. You have to go through some pretty serious hoops to buy fully automatic weapons......you are NOT allowed to buy rocket-propelled grenades......so why can someone of questionable mental stability with no training buy a 17 shot semi-automatic pistol?
Originally posted by Luciemac:
There should also be, yesâ€Â¦a LAWâ€Â¦prohibiting the manufacture, marketing and sale of firearms to CHILDREN. Parents engaged in teaching their children to kill, or who make a firearm available to their children by “forgetting” and leaving it on the coffee table, should be fined and imprisoned, and the gun removed. Permanently. |
I'm pretty sure that it's countrywide that no one under 18 can purchase a long gun and no one under 21 a handgun. I also think this point is not in dispute by anyone, especially as it pertains to kids getting their hands on weapons and their parents' liability for it.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Should people with certain types of psychological issues perhaps be screened, and possibly be deterred from purchasing a firearm? |
Originally posted by Luciemac:
Yes. Anyone with a good reason why NOT, please show yourselves. I’d love to hear your spiel. |
That's not the question.....don't be pedantic. Why hasn't this been addressed before in a serious manner? Just as older persons are required to have their medical fitness to drive checked, why not people evaluated on their qualification to own a firearm?
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
What if my neighbor threatens me? Or just pisses me off? |
Originally posted by Luciemac:
Walk away? |
You took what I said out of context. My point was that if I'm feeling fragile in the first place and I snap, then I can easily shoot the neighbor. Or if I'm scared, the same.
Of course the sensible answer is to walk away if the neighbor pisses me off, or call the police if he threatens me.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
[i]“Oddly, it doesn't really make sense to me that I shouldn't have had to go through some fairly serious and rigorous procedures before I'm just turned loose with this thing, don't you think? |
Originally posted by Luciemac:
If anyone disagrees that Jeb should NOT have had to go through some serious “procedures” with his history of bad judgment and depression, please tell us why. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'm not going to do anything stupid. |
Originally posted by Luciemac:
Isn’t that what they all say? |
Argh! Again with the out of context! And what does that mean??? It's sure as heck pretty darn insensitive. My point was that I wouldn't have laid my soul bare like this had I not felt that I had gotten a handle on my issues enough to realize I have zero use for having a handgun around, and that truthfully, it's likely to get me into trouble. Hence my selling it, and back to the gun dealer, not to just anyone on Craig's list or whatever.
In this day and age, the second amendment argument doesn't really hold much water with sensible folks. Everybody knows that the writers would never have structured something so vague and open to misinterpretation had they any inkling of the way it would have ended up being abused. This isn't a freedom issue......it's a safety and common sense issue. And we're remarkably short on both when it comes to gun human violence in this country.
So let's leave the guns out of it.
Let's regulate the owners and make damn sure they're qualified to exercise their right.
Lucie, I'll get to the rest of it later.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2015 01:26:46 PM · #98 |
“Why shouldn't there be a psychological screening?”
I couldn’t agree more. Psychological testing may be more important than any other kind of screening.
“And how about different levels of qualifications for the different levels of firearms.”
Extremely stringent levels of qualifications for ALL the different levels of firearms are a no-brainer. If you want a gun that badly, you should be willing to undergo whatever testing/evaluation it takes, legally, to obtain one.
“I'm pretty sure that it's countrywide that no one under 18 can purchase a long gun and no one under 21 a handgun. I also think this point is not in dispute by anyone, especially as it pertains to kids getting their hands on weapons and their parents' liability for it.”
//crickett.com/ Crickett Rifles - “Quality Firearms for America’s Youth” - marketed to KIDS. In my state (2013) a five-year-old, given a Crickett Rifle for his birthday, shot and killed his two-year-old sister. Ruled “accidental”, no charges filed. Coroner says: “"Just one of those crazy accidents." Funny, I see it as intentional murder by the parents, akin to locking your kid in a hot car all day. “Ooops...I forgot she was in there!”
//www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/kentucky-accidential-shooting/index.html
“That's not the question.....don't be pedantic. Why hasn't this been addressed before in a serious manner? Just as older persons are required to have their medical fitness to drive checked, why not people evaluated on their qualification to own a firearm?”
Shouldn’t you be asking these questions to your members of congress? Especially those owned by the NRA? Any of us nobodies can scream about “fitness” for gun-ownership till we’re blue in the face and what we get back, even from the DPC crowd is that we’re (quoting your words, Jebâ€Â¦..) insulting, insensitive, a jerk, mean, unreasonable, unpleasant, narrow, misinformed, irrational, incorrect, offensive, clueless, inflammatory, ignorant, and not worth the effort.
Yet here we areâ€Â¦..agreeing on so much, though I doubt you’ll admit that that’s true. None of it matters....as long as everyone supports you in your effort to be better in every way you want to be.
It thrills me to death you’re taking these steps (whatever they are in addition to losing the gun). I’m sure all the DPC peeps who are NOT responding on this thread feel the same, too. You’ll succeed wonderfully, of course, because you have the courage to own your stuff and be open about it. They say that’s the first step. For what it’s worth, I’m really, really happy about it (and that you reached out to your DPC family).
Message edited by author 2015-09-02 14:41:52. |
|
|
|
09/02/2015 01:31:33 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by Luciemac:
Yet here we areâ€Â¦..agreeing on so much, though I doubt you’ll admit that that’s true. |
I think both of you might benefit from reviewing Forum Rule 13.
I think you "agree" on virtually everything and can stop (intentionally or unintentionally) using language designed to irritate and provoke right now and make a lot more "progress" ... |
|
|
|
09/02/2015 02:06:33 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Luciemac:
Yet here we areâ€Â¦..agreeing on so much, though I doubt you’ll admit that that’s true. |
I think both of you might benefit from reviewing Forum Rule 13.
I think you "agree" on virtually everything and can stop (intentionally or unintentionally) using language designed to irritate and provoke right now and make a lot more "progress" ... |
I have in no way violated Forum Rule 13. Otherwise, I would have been somehow punished, or sanctioned, or reprimanded, or whatever the hell they do on DPC to spank you.
I think Jeb knows I have no personal animosity towards him, or anyone else. I've never met ANY of you.
I'm stating personal observations and opinions based upon my own POV, just as he is. Do you somehow think "debates" should be fragrant and flowery with rosy glows in all the corners? Go to a garden party! |
|
