Another idiot with a gun

[_Simpson_ 250]

In and out, actually. Like I said... we have to follow the money trail to the root profiteers.

I may not be the biggest supporter of standardized personality tests for employment... but they can be modified and even computerized- keeping costs down.

Sound reasonable, I just dont know how affective it would be

[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.

personally, i think a tanker truck would do more mayhem. any idea how many propane trucks run around the country?

Really? How exactly do you ensure that the target that you intend to kill is taken out with a tanker? Let's assume for a moment, that with these murder suicides you wish to take out particular people (as that is the evidence we are presented with, particular family members, people against whom you hold some kind of grudge or personal vendetta) and not other 'innocent' bystanders? How do you ensure that your target is in the path of a tanker? Not to mention the availability of tankers which, if I am not much mistaken, would be extremely expensive to buy for such a mission and don't seem too readily available for hire. Seems to me that this would be a most unwieldy method in all sense of the word.

[HAL 9000 96]

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.

reference the bolded - i suppose innocent until proven guilty isn't in your lexicon.

and who's gonna be making this test you advocate?

It can at renewal time. Bold that.

I think what you are looking for is an ex post facto principle. By changing renewal procedures, you take care of that. Of course there are those lazies that just resist change 'just because'...

isn't it gonna be a little difficult to renew something that doesn't exist?

See previous post.

To add:

These would be new regulations to ensure that Charles and other legal gun owners are not psychopathic people with an arsenal.

[Kevin and 10]

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.

reference the bolded - i suppose innocent until proven guilty isn't in your lexicon.

and who's gonna be making this test you advocate?

It can at renewal time. Bold that.

I think what you are looking for is an ex post facto principle. By changing renewal procedures, you take care of that. Of course there are those lazies that just resist change 'just because'...

As many Republicans would say with the Patriot Act... If you have nothing to hide... you wouldn't mind this intrusion into your privacy...

Difference is that this isn't a privacy issue, in case you didn't get the parallel logic.

Because it isn't.

People that opposed a new procedure wouldn't renew, but would still carry if they felt they needed to. Having or not having a permit to carry won't stop someone that wants to, just like restraining orders don't work.

[Ban Hammer 14,250]

I am still waiting for someone to explain why gun control will not work when the US's homicide by means of firearms is 160 times that of a country with reasonable gun control; not ban, but control.

Campaign contributions.

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.

reference the bolded - i suppose innocent until proven guilty isn't in your lexicon.

and who's gonna be making this test you advocate?

It can at renewal time. Bold that.

I think what you are looking for is an ex post facto principle. By changing renewal procedures, you take care of that. Of course there are those lazies that just resist change 'just because'...

As many Republicans would say with the Patriot Act... If you have nothing to hide... you wouldn't mind this intrusion into your privacy...

Difference is that this isn't a privacy issue, in case you didn't get the parallel logic.

Because it isn't.

what is this renewal you speak of? there is no requirement for me to have a license for any gun i own. perhaps you might be thinking of a conceal carry licence, but that only applies to handguns.

here's your sign: fail

Who's talking about any existing permit structures? That's why I think I am mentioning control legislation as a theoretical thing- as in... it doesn't really exist yet.

Maybe you can read back beyond your stumble there.

so now that i've nailed your feet to the floor, you're gonna dance. so now you are on record as willing to give up your rights under the constitution to some nameless panel that is gonna make a test you have to pass or else.

'Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither' - Benjamin Franklin

[Heracles 417]

[natty bumppo 297]

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.

personally, i think a tanker truck would do more mayhem. any idea how many propane trucks run around the country?

Really? How exactly do you ensure that the target that you intend to kill is taken out with a tanker? Let's assume for a moment, that with these murder suicides you wish to take out particular people (as that is the evidence we are presented with, particular family members, people against whom you hold some kind of grudge or personal vendetta) and not other 'innocent' bystanders? How do you ensure that your target is in the path of a tanker? Not to mention the availability of tankers which, if I am not much mistaken, would be extremely expensive to buy for such a mission and don't seem too readily available for hire. Seems to me that this would be a most unwieldy method in all sense of the word.

you would actually buy/ hire the tanker?

location location location (and timing). just set the trigger and wait. you'll get the mark

if someone wanted a terminate a target ... why would they care about collateral damage?

[HAL 9000 96]

In and out, actually. Like I said... we have to follow the money trail to the root profiteers.

I may not be the biggest supporter of standardized personality tests for employment... but they can be modified and even computerized- keeping costs down.

Sound reasonable, I just dont know how affective it would be

It has potential.

Result:

Legal, sane gun owners get to keep their arsenal.

Crazies...

don't.

This with a very strict control of manufacturing and sales tracking (not disturbing the flow to sane, non violent legal buyers)... could help.

Of course if people in this country kneejerk over an Obama speech to schookids... imagine when they 'go after' Bessie on the gun rack. Well... perceived paranoia is already a boon for the gun and ammo industry is it not?

[Heracles 417]

so now that i've nailed your feet to the floor, you're gonna dance. so now you are on record as willing to give up your rights under the constitution to some nameless panel that is gonna make a test you have to pass or else.

'Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither' - Benjamin Franklin

Freedom as in living without violence, in exchange for the security of a gun. Checkmate.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Booyah!

[natty bumppo 297]

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.

reference the bolded - i suppose innocent until proven guilty isn't in your lexicon.

and who's gonna be making this test you advocate?

It can at renewal time. Bold that.

I think what you are looking for is an ex post facto principle. By changing renewal procedures, you take care of that. Of course there are those lazies that just resist change 'just because'...

isn't it gonna be a little difficult to renew something that doesn't exist?

See previous post.

To add:

These would be new regulations to ensure that Charles and other legal gun owners are not psychopathic people with an arsenal.

so the new regulations would establish guilty until proven ....

[Ban Hammer 14,250]

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.

personally, i think a tanker truck would do more mayhem. any idea how many propane trucks run around the country?

Really? How exactly do you ensure that the target that you intend to kill is taken out with a tanker? Let's assume for a moment, that with these murder suicides you wish to take out particular people (as that is the evidence we are presented with, particular family members, people against whom you hold some kind of grudge or personal vendetta) and not other 'innocent' bystanders? How do you ensure that your target is in the path of a tanker? Not to mention the availability of tankers which, if I am not much mistaken, would be extremely expensive to buy for such a mission and don't seem too readily available for hire. Seems to me that this would be a most unwieldy method in all sense of the word.

probably in the same way you expect that everyone that is the intended victims will be there when someone shows up with a gun.

so now that i've nailed your feet to the floor, you're gonna dance. so now you are on record as willing to give up your rights under the constitution to some nameless panel that is gonna make a test you have to pass or else.

'Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither' - Benjamin Franklin

Freedom as in living without violence, in exchange for the security of a gun. Checkmate.

don't interrupt the adults, you should be seen and not heard.

[HAL 9000 96]

I am still waiting for someone to explain why gun control will not work when the US's homicide by means of firearms is 160 times that of a country with reasonable gun control; not ban, but control.

Campaign contributions.

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.

reference the bolded - i suppose innocent until proven guilty isn't in your lexicon.

and who's gonna be making this test you advocate?

It can at renewal time. Bold that.

I think what you are looking for is an ex post facto principle. By changing renewal procedures, you take care of that. Of course there are those lazies that just resist change 'just because'...

As many Republicans would say with the Patriot Act... If you have nothing to hide... you wouldn't mind this intrusion into your privacy...

Difference is that this isn't a privacy issue, in case you didn't get the parallel logic.

Because it isn't.

what is this renewal you speak of? there is no requirement for me to have a license for any gun i own. perhaps you might be thinking of a conceal carry licence, but that only applies to handguns.

here's your sign: fail

Who's talking about any existing permit structures? That's why I think I am mentioning control legislation as a theoretical thing- as in... it doesn't really exist yet.

Maybe you can read back beyond your stumble there.

so now that i've nailed your feet to the floor, you're gonna dance. so now you are on record as willing to give up your rights under the constitution to some nameless panel that is gonna make a test you have to pass or else.

'Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither' - Benjamin Franklin

What was it that I was sacrificing again?

Lets see... under what I am theorizing on...

1. I am not crazy. So I could pass these psychological tests.

2. I could arm myself to Timbutku legally.

3. You're making sh!t up and piling it on my 'thought experiment.'

No Charles... this 'idea' would not take your Boomsticks away from you if you were mentally healthy or not prone to violent behavior.

Why so defensive?

[HAL 9000 96]

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.

reference the bolded - i suppose innocent until proven guilty isn't in your lexicon.

and who's gonna be making this test you advocate?

It can at renewal time. Bold that.

I think what you are looking for is an ex post facto principle. By changing renewal procedures, you take care of that. Of course there are those lazies that just resist change 'just because'...

isn't it gonna be a little difficult to renew something that doesn't exist?

See previous post.

To add:

These would be new regulations to ensure that Charles and other legal gun owners are not psychopathic people with an arsenal.

so the new regulations would establish guilty until proven ....

If that's how you want to interpret it. Do the same with driver's licenses then. Same sh!t.

Really... mention sensible gun control to a room of gun owners and you get instantly defensive about something that perhaps most would pass without seeing a single infringement on 'rights' from the big bad guvmint. Weird.

[natty bumppo 297]

In and out, actually. Like I said... we have to follow the money trail to the root profiteers.

I may not be the biggest supporter of standardized personality tests for employment... but they can be modified and even computerized- keeping costs down.

Sound reasonable, I just dont know how affective it would be

It has potential.

Result:

Legal, sane gun owners get to keep their arsenal.

Crazies...

don't.

This with a very strict control of manufacturing and sales tracking (not disturbing the flow to sane, non violent legal buyers)... could help.

Of course if people in this country kneejerk over an Obama speech to schookids... imagine when they 'go after' Bessie on the gun rack. Well... perceived paranoia is already a boon for the gun and ammo industry is it not?

manufacturing, distribution, sales from dealers aren't controlled?

[Ban Hammer 14,250]

I am still waiting for someone to explain why gun control will not work when the US's homicide by means of firearms is 160 times that of a country with reasonable gun control; not ban, but control.

Campaign contributions.

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.

reference the bolded - i suppose innocent until proven guilty isn't in your lexicon.

and who's gonna be making this test you advocate?

It can at renewal time. Bold that.

I think what you are looking for is an ex post facto principle. By changing renewal procedures, you take care of that. Of course there are those lazies that just resist change 'just because'...

As many Republicans would say with the Patriot Act... If you have nothing to hide... you wouldn't mind this intrusion into your privacy...

Difference is that this isn't a privacy issue, in case you didn't get the parallel logic.

Because it isn't.

what is this renewal you speak of? there is no requirement for me to have a license for any gun i own. perhaps you might be thinking of a conceal carry licence, but that only applies to handguns.

here's your sign: fail

Who's talking about any existing permit structures? That's why I think I am mentioning control legislation as a theoretical thing- as in... it doesn't really exist yet.

Maybe you can read back beyond your stumble there.

so now that i've nailed your feet to the floor, you're gonna dance. so now you are on record as willing to give up your rights under the constitution to some nameless panel that is gonna make a test you have to pass or else.

'Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither' - Benjamin Franklin

What was it that I was sacrificing again?

Lets see... under what I am theorizing on...

1. I am not crazy. So I could pass these psychological tests.

2. I could arm myself to Timbutku legally.

3. You're making sh!t up and piling it on my 'thought experiment.'

No Charles... this 'idea' would not take your Boomsticks away from you if you were mentally healthy or not prone to violent behavior.

Why so defensive?

same for me with 1 and 2. but you want to dip into a gestapo environment and force everyone who wants to exercise their constitutional guaranteed rights to an unwarranted invasive investigation. what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?