Another idiot with a gun

[_Simpson_ 250]

Congratulations. I can agree with you on the out of context part. Sorry about the mix-up.

If by making 'other options' to equate in carnage you mean there is a statistical significance to the carnage created by firearms... then you'd be dead wrong. That's all I pointed out if you missed it.

Oh ok I see, I agree. I was not trying to say that, I agree guns create more carnage and cant be compared to the 'other option'. Guns are used more than other weapons for the most part because they are easy and effective. I just hate to see the law abiding citizens get screwed with stricter laws by the do something disease when a madman as such does something like this, the problem is with the madman.

[Heracles 417]

Come to various parts of DC or Chicago and then come tell me whether you prefer a police state or not.

Why would I? I consider DC a safe city because most of the crime is contained in a couple of poor (or "black") areas.

Well I just didn't want to point that out for um obvious reasons.

[Heracles 417]

imagine that.

Truck = designed to transport goods

Gun = designed to kill

What part are you missing here?

[Ban Hammer 14,234]

imagine that.

Truck = designed to transport goods

Gun = designed to kill

What part are you missing here?

rioters with bricks = apparently you missed something, and i'm not surprised.

[rebeccajo 14]

If a person has been found to have a mental disorder, or has had a recent mental hygiene commitment, should they be 'disarmed?'

by who?

You decide.

I'm serious.

mkay. yes, rebecca can go take someone's gun away. happy now?

Is it possible AT ALL to have a serious conversation with you about guns? Why is there this immediate genuflex to Charleton Heston and "out of my cold dead hand"?

[rebeccajo 14]

If a person has been found to have a mental disorder, or has had a recent mental hygiene commitment, should they be 'disarmed?'

Indiana is the only state that allows its residents to apply for a lifetime license to carry a handgun.

In other states, gun permits need to be renewed every 5 years or so. If a person has been found

to have a mental disorder, his renewal application should probably be denied.

But a mental hygiene commitment isn't a 'finding' of a mental disorder. It's a finding by the mental hygiene commissioner that the person is incapable of functioning safely in society AT THE MOMENT. One deciding factor in commitments is whether or not the patient is a danger to themself or to others. The brief hospitalizations that occur after a commitment are RARELY enough to "cure" the patient - it is just a means to stabilize them until they get into out-patient treatment.

If the person is a danger to others, he should not be released. If he is a danger to himself,

taking away his gun is not going to stop him.

By the way, I don't believe in protecting people from themselves. "Life, liberty and the pursuit

of happiness" should include the right to take your own life. If I want to kill myself, the

government should stay out of it.

Right Mark. We have room in all the behavioral health units in this country to hold all the 'unstable' indefinately.

FACT: Most people are held in a behavioral unit less than seven days.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

O/T but come to think of it there weren't many movies where Charlton Heston used guns - at least not many of the big movies that I remember.

If anything he would have been better placed to represent the National Sword Association, or the National Association for the Advancement of Bullwhip Owners

[Heracles 417]

rioters with bricks = apparently you missed something, and i'm not surprised.

The purpose of a brick is to build.

[mawilson 2,133]

Right Mark. We have room in all the behavioral health units in this country to hold all the 'unstable' indefinately.

FACT: Most people are held in a behavioral unit less than seven days.

So it's easier to ban guns than fix the broken mental health system?

[Ban Hammer 14,234]

rioters with bricks = apparently you missed something, and i'm not surprised.

The purpose of a brick is to build.

i'm sure reginald denny would agree with you.

[HAL 9000 96]

Congratulations. I can agree with you on the out of context part. Sorry about the mix-up.

If by making 'other options' to equate in carnage you mean there is a statistical significance to the carnage created by firearms... then you'd be dead wrong. That's all I pointed out if you missed it.

Oh ok I see, I agree. I was not trying to say that, I agree guns create more carnage and cant be compared to the 'other option'. Guns are used more than other weapons for the most part because they are easy and effective. I just hate to see the law abiding citizens get screwed with stricter laws by the do something disease when a madman as such does something like this, the problem is with the madman.

So I wonder why there is no real legislation- even by those that support that apparent 2nd Amendment right to individual arms, to be more effective at weeding out legal possession from those that are bona fide, straight-headed, law abiders. It is really weird to be honest. It would be in their best interests and I'd likely support such a legislative push to have an honest discussion about firearm safety and access. My hunch is that there are many crazies in denial within that (pardon the offense) 'gun culture' crowd that know they'd be targeted for disarming due to their mental nature.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Congratulations. I can agree with you on the out of context part. Sorry about the mix-up.

If by making 'other options' to equate in carnage you mean there is a statistical significance to the carnage created by firearms... then you'd be dead wrong. That's all I pointed out if you missed it.

Oh ok I see, I agree. I was not trying to say that, I agree guns create more carnage and cant be compared to the 'other option'. Guns are used more than other weapons for the most part because they are easy and effective. I just hate to see the law abiding citizens get screwed with stricter laws by the do something disease when a madman as such does something like this, the problem is with the madman.

So I wonder why there is no real legislation- even by those that support that apparent 2nd Amendment right to individual arms, to be more effective at weeding out legal possession from those that are bona fide, straight-headed, law abiders. It is really weird to be honest. It would be in their best interests and I'd likely support such a legislative push to have an honest discussion about firearm safety and access. My hunch is that there are many crazies in denial within that (pardon the offense) 'gun culture' crowd that know they'd be targeted for disarming due to their mental nature.

I would support something that could give us a honest discussion about gun safety. You just cant fix stupid though, most of the accidental shootings with children are because parents are just not using common sense and dont lock there guns up ect. As far as street violence there obtain illegally to start with. I dont know that stricter laws would fix these situations. I would just hope that under these discussions that both sides would be willing to give a little and I dont think thats very likely. We do need to address the problem, I just think going down the stricter laws road will do little good.

I agree there is a lot of gun owners that probably shouldnt own guns but I dont know that there is really a effective way to regulate these people.

[HAL 9000 96]

Congratulations. I can agree with you on the out of context part. Sorry about the mix-up.

If by making 'other options' to equate in carnage you mean there is a statistical significance to the carnage created by firearms... then you'd be dead wrong. That's all I pointed out if you missed it.

Oh ok I see, I agree. I was not trying to say that, I agree guns create more carnage and cant be compared to the 'other option'. Guns are used more than other weapons for the most part because they are easy and effective. I just hate to see the law abiding citizens get screwed with stricter laws by the do something disease when a madman as such does something like this, the problem is with the madman.

So I wonder why there is no real legislation- even by those that support that apparent 2nd Amendment right to individual arms, to be more effective at weeding out legal possession from those that are bona fide, straight-headed, law abiders. It is really weird to be honest. It would be in their best interests and I'd likely support such a legislative push to have an honest discussion about firearm safety and access. My hunch is that there are many crazies in denial within that (pardon the offense) 'gun culture' crowd that know they'd be targeted for disarming due to their mental nature.

I would support something that could give us a honest discussion about gun safety. You just cant fix stupid though, most of the accidental shootings with children are because parents are just not using common sense and dont lock there guns up ect. As far as street violence there obtain illegally to start with. I dont know that stricter laws would fix these situations. I would just hope that under these discussions that both sides would be willing to give a little and I dont think thats very likely. We do need to address the problem, I just think going down the stricter laws road will do little good.

I agree there is a lot of gun owners that probably shouldnt own guns but I dont know that there is really a effective way to regulate these people.

Well guns aren't made illegally to my knowledge. The money can be followed if there were better tracing methods.

We can start with a whole battery of mental tests for those that want to purchase guns. And then move on to ones that currently own them. That way, not one mental test can be singled out as defective by the likely crop of sudden experts in mental health that is sure to arise out of something like this.

[Peikko 1,575]

rioters with bricks = apparently you missed something, and i'm not surprised.

The purpose of a brick is to build.

i'm sure reginald denny would agree with you.

As I said, you missed that part where there are two separate arguments in this thread. Politically motivated groups can and will cause mischief regardless of whether they or the government is armed. A politically motivated individual with a gun can do #### all.

As far as incidents of mass murder/suicide are concerned, the gun is the preferred weapon because it's the best tool to deliberately take out targets as apposed to just anyone.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Congratulations. I can agree with you on the out of context part. Sorry about the mix-up.

If by making 'other options' to equate in carnage you mean there is a statistical significance to the carnage created by firearms... then you'd be dead wrong. That's all I pointed out if you missed it.

Oh ok I see, I agree. I was not trying to say that, I agree guns create more carnage and cant be compared to the 'other option'. Guns are used more than other weapons for the most part because they are easy and effective. I just hate to see the law abiding citizens get screwed with stricter laws by the do something disease when a madman as such does something like this, the problem is with the madman.

So I wonder why there is no real legislation- even by those that support that apparent 2nd Amendment right to individual arms, to be more effective at weeding out legal possession from those that are bona fide, straight-headed, law abiders. It is really weird to be honest. It would be in their best interests and I'd likely support such a legislative push to have an honest discussion about firearm safety and access. My hunch is that there are many crazies in denial within that (pardon the offense) 'gun culture' crowd that know they'd be targeted for disarming due to their mental nature.

I would support something that could give us a honest discussion about gun safety. You just cant fix stupid though, most of the accidental shootings with children are because parents are just not using common sense and dont lock there guns up ect. As far as street violence there obtain illegally to start with. I dont know that stricter laws would fix these situations. I would just hope that under these discussions that both sides would be willing to give a little and I dont think thats very likely. We do need to address the problem, I just think going down the stricter laws road will do little good.

I agree there is a lot of gun owners that probably shouldnt own guns but I dont know that there is really a effective way to regulate these people.

Well guns aren't made illegally to my knowledge. The money can be followed if there were better tracing methods.

We can start with a whole battery of mental tests for those that want to purchase guns. And then move on to ones that currently own them. That way, not one mental test can be singled out as defective by the likely crop of sudden experts in mental health that is sure to arise out of something like this.

Many are smuggled in and account for a lot of the gun related street violence.

I dont think we could effectively mentally test gun owners and besides that to have somebody sit down with you and evaluate you could get spendy.