Another idiot with a gun

[HAL 9000 96]

at least i'm a bit more broad minded about gun ownership and have some expertise in the matter, as opposed to you.

And I have some expertise about mental patients, as opposed to you.

This thread is about a guy who (whilst in an obviously unstable state) murdered HIS WIFE, HIS SON, and shot HIS PREGNANT DAUGHTER IN LAW.

Is there something about this that alludes you?

I did not start the thread to advocate overall gun control. I started the thread to have a discussion about WHETHER OR NOT someone who has been certified unstable, or who has had a recent mental health commitment, should be allowed to possess a gun.

Is there not something about two innocent dead bodies that doesn't say to you there is room here for some discussion AWAY FROM THE SECOND AMENDMENT in certain situations?

Come on now..........think about it!

i am well aware of all of that, thank you. however, where is your outrage for those trying to use this as a reason to institute broad reaching gun control laws?

as posted just a bit ago, i'm all for states sharing information on those deemed mentally ill. and i'm all for states have a better system for tracking those within their state that has been declared mentally ill. and i'm all for mental health professionals being required to inform the state about anyone they deem mentally ill or whatever term you may want to apply.

next?

I know this isn't directed at me but here's another lab example-

How do you feel about security screening at airports?

[rebeccajo 14]

at least i'm a bit more broad minded about gun ownership and have some expertise in the matter, as opposed to you.

And I have some expertise about mental patients, as opposed to you.

This thread is about a guy who (whilst in an obviously unstable state) murdered HIS WIFE, HIS SON, and shot HIS PREGNANT DAUGHTER IN LAW.

Is there something about this that alludes you?

I did not start the thread to advocate overall gun control. I started the thread to have a discussion about WHETHER OR NOT someone who has been certified unstable, or who has had a recent mental health commitment, should be allowed to possess a gun.

Is there not something about two innocent dead bodies that doesn't say to you there is room here for some discussion AWAY FROM THE SECOND AMENDMENT in certain situations?

Come on now..........think about it!

i am well aware of all of that, thank you. however, where is your outrage for those trying to use this as a reason to institute broad reaching gun control laws?

as posted just a bit ago, i'm all for states sharing information on those deemed mentally ill. and i'm all for states have a better system for tracking those within their state that has been declared mentally ill. and i'm all for mental health professionals being required to inform the state about anyone they deem mentally ill or whatever term you may want to apply.

next?

Why then do you make the immediate leap to the assumption that if Crazy Joe has his gun taken away from him, someone is going to take it away from you?

Let me give you one example of how this type of thing ALREADY operates in civilized society. If Gangster Joe gets put in prison, he loses his rights - including his second amendment right. Has that affected your rights to the second amendment?

[Peikko 1,575]

at least i'm a bit more broad minded about gun ownership and have some expertise in the matter, as opposed to you.

And I have some expertise about mental patients, as opposed to you.

This thread is about a guy who (whilst in an obviously unstable state) murdered HIS WIFE, HIS SON, and shot HIS PREGNANT DAUGHTER IN LAW.

Is there something about this that alludes you?

I did not start the thread to advocate overall gun control. I started the thread to have a discussion about WHETHER OR NOT someone who has been certified unstable, or who has had a recent mental health commitment, should be allowed to possess a gun.

Is there not something about two innocent dead bodies that doesn't say to you there is room here for some discussion AWAY FROM THE SECOND AMENDMENT in certain situations?

Come on now..........think about it!

i am well aware of all of that, thank you. however, where is your outrage for those trying to use this as a reason to institute broad reaching gun control laws?

as posted just a bit ago, i'm all for states sharing information on those deemed mentally ill. and i'm all for states have a better system for tracking those within their state that has been declared mentally ill. and i'm all for mental health professionals being required to inform the state about anyone they deem mentally ill or whatever term you may want to apply.

next?

Why then do you make the immediate leap to the assumption that if Crazy Joe has his gun taken away from him, someone is going to take it away from you?

Let me give you one example of how this type of thing ALREADY operates in civilized society. If Gangster Joe gets put in prison, he loses his rights - including his second amendment right. Has that affected your rights to the second amendment?

Slippery slope alert, warning, warning, warning.

[rebeccajo 14]

Slippery slope alert, warning, warning, warning.

Wot?

[Ban Hammer 14,235]

at least i'm a bit more broad minded about gun ownership and have some expertise in the matter, as opposed to you.

I don't purport to be a gun expert. As to how 'broad minded' I am regarding gun ownership - that's guess work on your part. The only things you know for certain about my opinion on guns is that it's foolish to assume a cavalier attitude about firearms in order to further an agenda. Foolish in the extreme. That it's foolish to believe that gun owners are some how safer than non gun owners and that there is no correlation between legal gun ownership and gun crime and finally that this notion that gun ownership rights guarentee the integrity of freedom as being about as foolish a notion as you can get. That's all you know because that's all I have ever posted.

what i do know is this - any time there is something about taking away guns, you're there......

[Heracles 417]

well isn't that special? here again, we have someone who can't even vote telling usc's what they should or shouldn't do. i'm so glad you exclude grandma and grandpa, single women, and the physically disabled from your narrow mind as they need to be able to defend themselves.

Seem to be doing okay in every other developed country. Oh wait, because the perpetrators have no gun.

We have gone through this before. Only in a fantasy world are people going to pull a John Wayne / Clint Eastwood and take down the bad guy. People don't exactly knock on the door and say hello, bad guy coming. They hold it to your head while you are walking or sleeping or driving etc. Unless you are some sort of navy seal. I highly doubt a gun will be of any use.

Why do you guys discredit the significantly lower murder rate, by means of firearms, in countries with modern strict gun controls?

Edited September 8, 2009 by Booyah!

[The Dude 206]

at least i'm a bit more broad minded about gun ownership and have some expertise in the matter, as opposed to you.

I don't purport to be a gun expert. As to how 'broad minded' I am regarding gun ownership - that's guess work on your part. The only things you know for certain about my opinion on guns is that it's foolish to assume a cavalier attitude about firearms in order to further an agenda. Foolish in the extreme. That it's foolish to believe that gun owners are some how safer than non gun owners and that there is no correlation between legal gun ownership and gun crime and finally that this notion that gun ownership rights guarentee the integrity of freedom as being about as foolish a notion as you can get. That's all you know because that's all I have ever posted.

what i do know is this - any time there is something about taking away guns, you're there......

And so are you, regardless of the surrounding circumstances.

[Ban Hammer 14,235]

And yet... once again... what rights are being impinged upon?

Calm down there Charles. Unless you're crazy. Then you get 'license' to get defensive about this 'idea' that has nothing to do with taking guns away from people prone to using them against innocent people. That's been stated already though... just in case you selectively blocked that out.

there you go again trying to paint someone with an opposite view as crazy.

if you don't know what rights of yours are being infringed, perhaps you should take high school government again.

Sorry Charles, I didn't go straight for the racist insinuation. Thought maybe a genuine IQ test would be a good idea. You know, one that ISN'T biased so that only one group can pass it. You still fail for going straight to the racist innuendo. Keep grasping.

just pointing out that it's been done before. but pardon me for knowing about jim crowe laws while you didn't.

and you missed a spot on the left side of your nose.

I'm well aware of the past. However, I was trying to have a modern discussion. I guess I was hoping for too much from this crowd. But it does seem to be indicative of your views of law and order in this country.

so modern discussion in your view is imposing more laws and taking away rights. gotcha.

Why then do you make the immediate leap to the assumption that if Crazy Joe has his gun taken away from him, someone is going to take it away from you?

Let me give you one example of how this type of thing ALREADY operates in civilized society. If Gangster Joe gets put in prison, he loses his rights - including his second amendment right. Has that affected your rights to the second amendment?

that first sentence - i wonder how many people said that in england?

and in some states, those get revoked rights get reinstated.

next?

[HAL 9000 96]

And yet... once again... what rights are being impinged upon?

Calm down there Charles. Unless you're crazy. Then you get 'license' to get defensive about this 'idea' that has nothing to do with taking guns away from people prone to using them against innocent people. That's been stated already though... just in case you selectively blocked that out.

there you go again trying to paint someone with an opposite view as crazy.

if you don't know what rights of yours are being infringed, perhaps you should take high school government again.

Sorry Charles, I didn't go straight for the racist insinuation. Thought maybe a genuine IQ test would be a good idea. You know, one that ISN'T biased so that only one group can pass it. You still fail for going straight to the racist innuendo. Keep grasping.

just pointing out that it's been done before. but pardon me for knowing about jim crowe laws while you didn't.

and you missed a spot on the left side of your nose.

I'm well aware of the past. However, I was trying to have a modern discussion. I guess I was hoping for too much from this crowd. But it does seem to be indicative of your views of law and order in this country.

so modern discussion in your view is imposing more laws and taking away rights. gotcha.

Did I actually call you crazy?

FAIL once again.

I think what we have here is an inability to comprehend what is being stated.

Please don't carry this off into another he said- she said tirade just because you have no basis for a rational argument.

[Ban Hammer 14,235]

And yet... once again... what rights are being impinged upon?

Calm down there Charles. Unless you're crazy. Then you get 'license' to get defensive about this 'idea' that has nothing to do with taking guns away from people prone to using them against innocent people. That's been stated already though... just in case you selectively blocked that out.

there you go again trying to paint someone with an opposite view as crazy.

if you don't know what rights of yours are being infringed, perhaps you should take high school government again.

Did I actually call you crazy?

FAIL once again.

I think what we have here is an inability to comprehend what is being stated.

Please don't carry this off into another he said- she said tirade just because you have no basis for a rational argument.

surely you've heard of insinuation. and by throwing that out there, it's a slippery slope from there on. good work!

at least i'm a bit more broad minded about gun ownership and have some expertise in the matter, as opposed to you.

I don't purport to be a gun expert. As to how 'broad minded' I am regarding gun ownership - that's guess work on your part. The only things you know for certain about my opinion on guns is that it's foolish to assume a cavalier attitude about firearms in order to further an agenda. Foolish in the extreme. That it's foolish to believe that gun owners are some how safer than non gun owners and that there is no correlation between legal gun ownership and gun crime and finally that this notion that gun ownership rights guarentee the integrity of freedom as being about as foolish a notion as you can get. That's all you know because that's all I have ever posted.

what i do know is this - any time there is something about taking away guns, you're there......

And so are you, regardless of the surrounding circumstances.

and apparently so are you.........

[HAL 9000 96]

And yet... once again... what rights are being impinged upon?

Calm down there Charles. Unless you're crazy. Then you get 'license' to get defensive about this 'idea' that has nothing to do with taking guns away from people prone to using them against innocent people. That's been stated already though... just in case you selectively blocked that out.

there you go again trying to paint someone with an opposite view as crazy.

if you don't know what rights of yours are being infringed, perhaps you should take high school government again.

Did I actually call you crazy?

FAIL once again.

I think what we have here is an inability to comprehend what is being stated.

Please don't carry this off into another he said- she said tirade just because you have no basis for a rational argument.

surely you've heard of insinuation. and by throwing that out there, it's a slippery slope from there on. good work!

at least i'm a bit more broad minded about gun ownership and have some expertise in the matter, as opposed to you.

I don't purport to be a gun expert. As to how 'broad minded' I am regarding gun ownership - that's guess work on your part. The only things you know for certain about my opinion on guns is that it's foolish to assume a cavalier attitude about firearms in order to further an agenda. Foolish in the extreme. That it's foolish to believe that gun owners are some how safer than non gun owners and that there is no correlation between legal gun ownership and gun crime and finally that this notion that gun ownership rights guarentee the integrity of freedom as being about as foolish a notion as you can get. That's all you know because that's all I have ever posted.

what i do know is this - any time there is something about taking away guns, you're there......

And so are you, regardless of the surrounding circumstances.

and apparently so are you.........

You mean a slippery slope, to you = jumping to conclusions that are not explicitly there to be made- from the data provided?

Like I said once before... I know you likely won't go back and check the actual text in this thread to fact check... but if you flat out refuse to read things carefully... and then 'jump the gun' on your conclusions... what can be said about your ability to think things through critically?

I really hope you're just a chain puller and you are merely agreeing to disagree.

[The Dude 206]

And yet... once again... what rights are being impinged upon?

Calm down there Charles. Unless you're crazy. Then you get 'license' to get defensive about this 'idea' that has nothing to do with taking guns away from people prone to using them against innocent people. That's been stated already though... just in case you selectively blocked that out.

there you go again trying to paint someone with an opposite view as crazy.

if you don't know what rights of yours are being infringed, perhaps you should take high school government again.

Sorry Charles, I didn't go straight for the racist insinuation. Thought maybe a genuine IQ test would be a good idea. You know, one that ISN'T biased so that only one group can pass it. You still fail for going straight to the racist innuendo. Keep grasping.

just pointing out that it's been done before. but pardon me for knowing about jim crowe laws while you didn't.

and you missed a spot on the left side of your nose.

I'm well aware of the past. However, I was trying to have a modern discussion. I guess I was hoping for too much from this crowd. But it does seem to be indicative of your views of law and order in this country.

so modern discussion in your view is imposing more laws and taking away rights. gotcha.

There you go again Charles, just making sh!t up as you go along. I don't recall ever stating that, but then again, when have facts got in your way when it comes to firearms? (Hint: thats a rhetorical question)

Getting rid of guns would be a nice thing...... in some sort of Utopia. If you tried to go to a UK/Aus based system, It would be as effective as prohibition against alcohol was here. Now, I don't support an all out ban on guns. But I do think some perspective is needed. When the 2nd amendment was written, the needs of the country, the people and the government was different from what it is today. You can't honestly say that we need to be armed to fend off a foreign invasion...... The part I don't get is when you even suggest banning things like a high capacity magazine, or armor piercing ammo, things that have no defensible use, people will get out the "slippery slope" argument. Or try suggestion that states and federal agencies share information to better discern who is and who is not a good candidate to purchase a gun (mental health), and you will get a huge group who think that it's just big brother trying to gather information to control the masses.

[Ban Hammer 14,235]

And yet... once again... what rights are being impinged upon?

Calm down there Charles. Unless you're crazy. Then you get 'license' to get defensive about this 'idea' that has nothing to do with taking guns away from people prone to using them against innocent people. That's been stated already though... just in case you selectively blocked that out.

there you go again trying to paint someone with an opposite view as crazy.

if you don't know what rights of yours are being infringed, perhaps you should take high school government again.

Did I actually call you crazy?

FAIL once again.

I think what we have here is an inability to comprehend what is being stated.

Please don't carry this off into another he said- she said tirade just because you have no basis for a rational argument.

surely you've heard of insinuation. and by throwing that out there, it's a slippery slope from there on. good work!

at least i'm a bit more broad minded about gun ownership and have some expertise in the matter, as opposed to you.

I don't purport to be a gun expert. As to how 'broad minded' I am regarding gun ownership - that's guess work on your part. The only things you know for certain about my opinion on guns is that it's foolish to assume a cavalier attitude about firearms in order to further an agenda. Foolish in the extreme. That it's foolish to believe that gun owners are some how safer than non gun owners and that there is no correlation between legal gun ownership and gun crime and finally that this notion that gun ownership rights guarentee the integrity of freedom as being about as foolish a notion as you can get. That's all you know because that's all I have ever posted.

what i do know is this - any time there is something about taking away guns, you're there......

And so are you, regardless of the surrounding circumstances.

and apparently so are you.........

You mean a slippery slope, to you = jumping to conclusions that are not explicitly there to be made- from the data provided?

Like I said once before... I know you likely won't go back and check the actual text in this thread to fact check... but if you flat out refuse to read things carefully... and then 'jump the gun' on your conclusions... what can be said about your ability to think things through critically?

I really hope you're just a chain puller and you are merely agreeing to disagree.

yawn. here we go with the hot air lecture again from he who fancies himself a computer.

and that last line of yours - as i hope you are about voluntarily abdicating your rights.

[Ban Hammer 14,235]

And yet... once again... what rights are being impinged upon?

Calm down there Charles. Unless you're crazy. Then you get 'license' to get defensive about this 'idea' that has nothing to do with taking guns away from people prone to using them against innocent people. That's been stated already though... just in case you selectively blocked that out.

there you go again trying to paint someone with an opposite view as crazy.

if you don't know what rights of yours are being infringed, perhaps you should take high school government again.

Sorry Charles, I didn't go straight for the racist insinuation. Thought maybe a genuine IQ test would be a good idea. You know, one that ISN'T biased so that only one group can pass it. You still fail for going straight to the racist innuendo. Keep grasping.

just pointing out that it's been done before. but pardon me for knowing about jim crowe laws while you didn't.

and you missed a spot on the left side of your nose.

I'm well aware of the past. However, I was trying to have a modern discussion. I guess I was hoping for too much from this crowd. But it does seem to be indicative of your views of law and order in this country.

so modern discussion in your view is imposing more laws and taking away rights. gotcha.

There you go again Charles, just making sh!t up as you go along. I don't recall ever stating that, but then again, when have facts got in your way when it comes to firearms? (Hint: thats a rhetorical question)

Getting rid of guns would be a nice thing...... in some sort of Utopia. If you tried to go to a UK/Aus based system, It would be as effective as prohibition against alcohol was here. Now, I don't support an all out ban on guns. But I do think some perspective is needed. When the 2nd amendment was written, the needs of the country, the people and the government was different from what it is today. You can't honestly say that we need to be armed to fend off a foreign invasion...... The part I don't get is when you even suggest banning things like a high capacity magazine, or armor piercing ammo, things that have no defensible use, people will get out the "slippery slope" argument. Or try suggestion that states and federal agencies share information to better discern who is and who is not a good candidate to purchase a gun (mental health), and you will get a huge group who think that it's just big brother trying to gather information to control the masses.

yes, you did agree with natty's post. or do you just run off and post without thinking about the ramifications?

now tell me what's so special about a high capacity magazine? a bit of practice and one can swap out magazines in a very short time. that is, after all, what they were designed for.

ammo piercing ammo is already banned for private use. surely you knew that, didn't you? no?

as for sharing information between state and federal government, you might check out the brady bill and what it requires. it's already in effect, although as from the story in the op, not effectively.

and before anyone else decides to fire rounds my way, i'm all for someone losing their firearms on the first incident of domestic violence........

[HAL 9000 96]

And yet... once again... what rights are being impinged upon?

Calm down there Charles. Unless you're crazy. Then you get 'license' to get defensive about this 'idea' that has nothing to do with taking guns away from people prone to using them against innocent people. That's been stated already though... just in case you selectively blocked that out.

there you go again trying to paint someone with an opposite view as crazy.

if you don't know what rights of yours are being infringed, perhaps you should take high school government again.

Did I actually call you crazy?

FAIL once again.

I think what we have here is an inability to comprehend what is being stated.

Please don't carry this off into another he said- she said tirade just because you have no basis for a rational argument.

surely you've heard of insinuation. and by throwing that out there, it's a slippery slope from there on. good work!

at least i'm a bit more broad minded about gun ownership and have some expertise in the matter, as opposed to you.

I don't purport to be a gun expert. As to how 'broad minded' I am regarding gun ownership - that's guess work on your part. The only things you know for certain about my opinion on guns is that it's foolish to assume a cavalier attitude about firearms in order to further an agenda. Foolish in the extreme. That it's foolish to believe that gun owners are some how safer than non gun owners and that there is no correlation between legal gun ownership and gun crime and finally that this notion that gun ownership rights guarentee the integrity of freedom as being about as foolish a notion as you can get. That's all you know because that's all I have ever posted.

what i do know is this - any time there is something about taking away guns, you're there......

And so are you, regardless of the surrounding circumstances.

and apparently so are you.........

You mean a slippery slope, to you = jumping to conclusions that are not explicitly there to be made- from the data provided?

Like I said once before... I know you likely won't go back and check the actual text in this thread to fact check... but if you flat out refuse to read things carefully... and then 'jump the gun' on your conclusions... what can be said about your ability to think things through critically?

I really hope you're just a chain puller and you are merely agreeing to disagree.

yawn. here we go with the hot air lecture again from he who fancies himself a computer.

and that last line of yours - as i hope you are about voluntarily abdicating your rights.

Yet it is your LP that is apparently scratched... repeating the same strange obsession with an infringement on rights that is as far away from any contextual truth as there can be.

Get a grip... you have no factual nor rational basis, so you are starting to resort to the more classical childish technique. Please don't go there.

If I've already stated that no rights are abdicated (right to own guns unless you're stark mad), and you insist I am... then clearly you do seem to have a problem with thinking things through...