Mock

As far as the background checks go, we already have to go through them.
When it comes to a persons psychiatric state where do we start and stop? Lets say a person went through a severe state of depression and was medicated 25 years ago after a messy divorce. Is that grounds to stop them from owning a firearm? Or would it be a case of , you were institutionalized last year? Just where do we draw the line and who decides where we draw it?

(12-20-2014, 09:51 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-20-2014, 09:41 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]The list can go on and on and in my opinion sounds just about as stupid as the arguments for more firearm control.

Don't underestimate your list, F.U.

It sounds way more stupid than the majority of the arguments for more firearm control. IMO.

It depends on what side of the fence you stand on HotD. I guess children choking to death on toys with small parts, or drowning in a swimming pool is not as big of a deal. Its just when it comes to those evil firearms that it becomes a problem.

(12-20-2014, 09:49 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-20-2014, 09:41 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-20-2014, 09:05 AM)Cutz Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah... people that ride motorcycles without a helmet should be alive to learn from their mistakes, kids that play on train tracks should be alive to learn from their mistakes, and kids that OD on drugs should be alive to learn from their mistakes. That doesn't mean I blame motorcycles, trains, or drugs for their death.

People -- including police officers -- are not mechanical. People have judgment and decision-making powers, unlike motorcycles and trains and cars.

That is exactly right. People have to use better judgment when dealing with mechanical objects. We cant blame the object, just the person and their stupidity is to blame.
As a child you were told, Don't run with scissors. But if you did and got hurt with them it was your stupidity, not the floor or the scissors fault.

Are you comparing a child's judgment and decision-making skills to a trained police officer's, F.U.? That's what we were talking about.

If you've veered from the police-officer analogy and on to the general public: Are you really so programmed as to continue to suggest that a 4-year-old is responsible for a fatality caused when he/she gets a hold of a loaded firearm; that the death is a result of the child's stupidity, rather than the adult gun-owner's negligence?

What about a abortion? That is a straight up case of murder, but no one seams to care about that. No or very little restrictions there. I guess we get to pick and choose when we worry about a life.

(12-20-2014, 09:58 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-20-2014, 09:49 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-20-2014, 09:41 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-20-2014, 09:05 AM)Cutz Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah... people that ride motorcycles without a helmet should be alive to learn from their mistakes, kids that play on train tracks should be alive to learn from their mistakes, and kids that OD on drugs should be alive to learn from their mistakes. That doesn't mean I blame motorcycles, trains, or drugs for their death.

People -- including police officers -- are not mechanical. People have judgment and decision-making powers, unlike motorcycles and trains and cars.

That is exactly right. People have to use better judgment when dealing with mechanical objects. We cant blame the object, just the person and their stupidity is to blame.
As a child you were told, Don't run with scissors. But if you did and got hurt with them it was your stupidity, not the floor or the scissors fault.

Are you comparing a child's judgment and decision-making skills to a trained police officer's, F.U.? That's what we were talking about.

If you've veered from the police-officer analogy and on to the general public: Are you really so programmed as to continue to suggest that a 4-year-old is responsible for a fatality caused when he/she gets a hold of a loaded firearm; that the death is a result of the child's own stupidity, rather than the adult gun-owner's negligence?

No, I guess I missed the police part of it. My mistake. Disregard my comments until you get back on track with the, We need more gun laws because guns kill, topic.

(12-20-2014, 09:57 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-20-2014, 09:51 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-20-2014, 09:41 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]The list can go on and on and in my opinion sounds just about as stupid as the arguments for more firearm control.

Don't underestimate your list, F.U.

It sounds way more stupid than the majority of the arguments for more firearm control. IMO.

It depends on what side of the fence you stand on HotD. I guess children choking to death on toys with small parts, or drowning in a swimming pool is not as big of a deal. Its just when it comes to those evil firearms that it becomes a problem.

I'm pretty middle of the road on guns, F.U. My opinion stands.

No one here but you has characterized firearms as "evil".

I've only seen people exploring options to keep deadly objects used to kill others out of the hands of irresponsible, unqualified, unstable and evil people.

You are right HotD, I used the evil word. I guess I get a little worked up over this because every time I turn around someone is calling for more gun control. I read it all the time on the Brady bunches pages. I cant comment there anymore because I am banned. The minute you talk pro firearm the call you a troll and ban you from posting. They only want to hear your opinion if it is the same as yours. If it isn't you get the ban hammer. I have issues with that.

(12-20-2014, 10:01 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]No, I guess I missed the police part of it. My mistake. Disregard my comments until you get back on track with the, We need more gun laws because guns kill, topic.

I never went off track, F.U.

I pay attention to other posters' comments before replying to them.

Let me help you: Blueberry said that 12-year-old Tamir Rice should be alive today even though he made the mistake of waving a real-looking fake gun in the park; that he shouldn't have died at the hands of a police officer for that mistake. Cutz responded that kids deserve to live through mistakes like riding a motorcycle without a helmet, playing on train tracks, or using drugs too.

But, we can switch tracks to suit your goals. No problem.

(12-20-2014, 10:11 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]You are right HotD, I used the evil word. I guess I get a little worked up over this because every time I turn around someone is calling for more gun control. I read it all the time on the Brady bunches pages. I cant comment there anymore because I am banned. The minute you talk pro firearm the call you a troll and ban you from posting. They only want to hear your opinion if it is the same as yours. If it isn't you get the ban hammer. I have issues with that.

Well, you're at Mock and no one has banned you or called you a troll here, to the best of my knowledge.

Hahahahaha, That's one thing I like about this place, freedom of speech. Well that and the fact that a topic can turn a corner faster than you can say corner. LMAO
I have to get my arse to work now, but when I return I will read back a few pages and see where the discussion was about cops killing, because I went back a page and just didn't see it. I seen discussion about the new kid in office that the NRA tried to stop, but that is about where I returned to this topic.
Oh, by the way, this thread just hit 100 pages. That's great that we can go on discussing this subject for that long.

(12-20-2014, 10:00 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]What about a abortion? That is a straight up case of murder, but no one seams to care about that. No or very little restrictions there. I guess we get to pick and choose when we worry about a life.

Ineffective deflection and unoriginal, inapplicable, rhetoric which is not even worthy of serious comment by critical thinkers IMO, F.U.

Asked and answered many times before.

Maybe someone else will play.

Jesus, F.U.

The discussion was right above my comment in response to it.

Let me save you some time. Here ya go:

(12-19-2014, 07:43 PM)blueberryhill Wrote: [ -> ]I think the cop who killed the 12 year old should be charged. The reasons have already been discussed ad nauseam. However, I think most LE are doing their best to keep us safe. Yes, i know, he shouldn't have been playing with a real looking gun, etc...he should still be alive to learn from his mistake....didn't deserve to die.

(12-20-2014, 09:05 AM)Cutz Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah... people that ride motorcycles without a helmet should be alive to learn from their mistakes, kids that play on train tracks should be alive to learn from their mistakes, and kids that OD on drugs should be alive to learn from their mistakes. That doesn't mean I blame motorcycles, trains, or drugs for their death.

Trains and other automobiles do have operators, licensed in using those machines. I think a kid playing on the train tracks and getting run over, despite personnel that work in the trainyard designed specifically to keep that from happening, is very analogous to a kid that's trying to pull a gun on cops and gets shot. However, there's another thread dedicated to that discussion.

For the more on-point thread topic of gun control... USA was pretty much founded on the fact that just about anyone should be allowed to own a gun. If you put the power of "gun control" in the hands of those that gun ownership is designed against, then you negate the point. An armed populace is a country that has the power to rebel.

Now, personally, i don't want psychopaths with paranoid delusions walking around packing... but with the way society treats "mental health," I'd say 75% of the country could be diagnosed with ADD, Anxiety, antisocial PD, or any other myriad of "mental problems." My point stands that statistically more people die from automobiles than guns every year. People that think guns are the problem are delusional. There's VIOLENT people in the world. You can go to a gas station and have enough explosive material to kill anyone you want for like 10 bucks. You can't solve violence by taking away weapons. I don't see MADD lobbying for prohibition and the repeal of automobiles.

(12-20-2014, 01:32 PM)Cutz Wrote: [ -> ]My point stands that statistically more people die from automobiles than guns every year. You can't solve violence by taking away weapons. I don't see MADD lobbying for prohibition and the repeal of automobiles.

On the contrary, owning and driving an automobile is a privilege. I'm not sure what the laws are across all states but in California, you get a DUI and you lose your license for a period of time. A 2^nd time and you lose it for a longer period of time. All that and you may not have even killed someone! There are laws governing speed, the design of cars is constantly changing in a supposed effort to improve safety PLUS, you need to have insurance to own and operate an automobile. Plus roads are often changed (barriers installed for example) to help prevent accidents or idiots behind the wheel causing accidents.

You could solve the auto accident issue by prohibiting vehicles or, you could at least mandate licenses and insurance to drive them, tougher "automobile control" laws etc.

I'd draw a slight parallel between automobile speeding laws and laws governing the speed with which a gun can let loose a barrage of bullets.

How do intelligent people constantly try to compare autos with guns?

Fucking nauseating.

(12-20-2014, 02:08 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]How do intelligent people constantly try to compare autos with guns?

Fucking nauseating.

Because they're both dangerous tools that are universally accessible and incorporate thousands of deaths every year. Maybe if toaster deaths get on the rise, I'll have a new nauseating parallel.

(12-20-2014, 01:32 PM)Cutz Wrote: [ -> ]Trains and other automobiles do have operators, licensed in using those machines. I think a kid playing on the train tracks and getting run over, despite personnel that work in the trainyard designed specifically to keep that from happening, is very analogous to a kid that's trying to pull a gun on cops and gets shot. However, there's another thread dedicated to that discussion.

For the more on-point thread topic of gun control... USA was pretty much founded on the fact that just about anyone should be allowed to own a gun. If you put the power of "gun control" in the hands of those that gun ownership is designed against, then you negate the point. An armed populace is a country that has the power to rebel.

Now, personally, i don't want psychopaths with paranoid delusions walking around packing... but with the way society treats "mental health," I'd say 75% of the country could be diagnosed with ADD, Anxiety, antisocial PD, or any other myriad of "mental problems." My point stands that statistically more people die from automobiles than guns every year. People that think guns are the problem are delusional. There's VIOLENT people in the world. You can go to a gas station and have enough explosive material to kill anyone you want for like 10 bucks. You can't solve violence by taking away weapons. I don't see MADD lobbying for prohibition and the repeal of automobiles.

I didn't read your post upthread to be comparing train conductors and automobile drivers to police officers. I read it that you were comparing children being responsible for their own unfortunate deaths when playing on train tracks, riding motorcycles without helmets, and taking drugs to kids with fake guns being shot by police officers. But, the only one of those means by which children sometimes die that is certainly dependent on the judgment and decision-making of someone other than the child is the police-officer shooting.

In any case, MADD was key to the lowering of the legal BAL driving limit from 1.0 to .08 or lower across all 50 states, along with the implementation of much harsher penalties for DUI offenses nationwide. The number of automobile deaths attributed to such irresponsible drivers has decreased dramatically as a result of those measures. You're right; MADD doesn't push for a ban on all vehicles -- it pushes for reduced vehicle-related deaths and more accountability for irresponsible and unqualified users, the same goals as many gun control advocates are pursuing.

The DUI driving laws/regulations and repercussions for violating them could be legitimately looked at as "vehicle control" law/regulation, analogous to existing and proposed "gun control" laws/regulations. I agree. The laws and regulations in both cases center around the goal of keeping irresponsible users and those with poor judgment from harming others with the potentially deadly object. Those "control" measures are a good thing.

You can't legally drive a vehicle in this country without a license obtained by demonstrating knowledge of the road laws and ability to safely operate the vehicle, along with having secured liability insurance. Your driver's license is readily accessible to any police officer when you're stopped or questioned. Since you're comparing vehicles to firearms, would you then agree that a gun qualifications license (and possibly insurance) -- quickly and easily verified in a database by any law enforcement officer -- should also be required for all firearms owners across the country, Cutz?

How about the toddlers who get a hold of loaded guns in their homes and shoot themselves or others every week in this country. Do you think that little ones are just stupid and disobedient in those cases and that's that? Or, do you believe that adults should be responsible and required to safely store their guns and/or be prosecuted for negligence when small children are afforded access to firearms, Cutz?

Legally "responsible" and "mentally sound" people with no previous record of violence, crime or mental illness kill others with guns frequently. Heat of the moment. Unfounded or delusional anxiety/fear. Murderous/criminal intent. A running vehicle as a weapon in such instances is not nearly as feasible or common as a loaded gun.

Anyway, while I agree that there's no full solution and there will always be wrongful and accidental shooting deaths, I do believe that we should at least try harder to keep guns outta the hands of those identified as high risk when armed, for their own safety and the safety of others. That means better enforcement of existing gun laws and regulations. I have no objection to also considering new gun control measures that could result in fewer gun-related deaths. I consider those who flat out object to any such consideration, for any reason, to be limited in perspective.

(12-20-2014, 03:21 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]do you believe that adults should be responsible and required to safely store their guns and/or be prosecuted for negligence when small children are afforded access to firearms, Cutz?

Yes.

(12-20-2014, 03:21 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-20-2014, 01:32 PM)Cutz Wrote: [ -> ]Trains and other automobiles do have operators, licensed in using those machines. I think a kid playing on the train tracks and getting run over, despite personnel that work in the trainyard designed specifically to keep that from happening, is very analogous to a kid that's trying to pull a gun on cops and gets shot. However, there's another thread dedicated to that discussion.

For the more on-point thread topic of gun control... USA was pretty much founded on the fact that just about anyone should be allowed to own a gun. If you put the power of "gun control" in the hands of those that gun ownership is designed against, then you negate the point. An armed populace is a country that has the power to rebel.

Now, personally, i don't want psychopaths with paranoid delusions walking around packing... but with the way society treats "mental health," I'd say 75% of the country could be diagnosed with ADD, Anxiety, antisocial PD, or any other myriad of "mental problems." My point stands that statistically more people die from automobiles than guns every year. People that think guns are the problem are delusional. There's VIOLENT people in the world. You can go to a gas station and have enough explosive material to kill anyone you want for like 10 bucks. You can't solve violence by taking away weapons. I don't see MADD lobbying for prohibition and the repeal of automobiles.

I didn't read your post upthread to be comparing train conductors and automobile drivers to police officers. I read it that you were comparing children being responsible for their own unfortunate deaths when playing on train tracks, riding motorcycles without helmets, and taking drugs to kids with fake guns being shot by police officers. But, the only one of those means by which children sometimes die that is certainly dependent on the judgment and decision-making of someone other than the child is the police-officer shooting.

In any case, MADD was key to the lowering of the legal BAL driving limit from 1.0 to .08 or lower across all 50 states, along with the implementation of much harsher penalties for DUI offenses nationwide. The number of automobile deaths attributed to such irresponsible drivers has decreased dramatically as a result of those measures. You're right; MADD doesn't push for a ban on all vehicles -- it pushes for reduced vehicle-related deaths and more accountability for irresponsible and unqualified users, the same goals as many gun control advocates are pursuing.

The DUI driving laws/regulations and repercussions for violating them could be legitimately looked at as "vehicle control" law/regulation, analogous to existing and proposed "gun control" laws/regulations. I agree. The laws and regulations in both cases center around the goal of keeping irresponsible users and those with poor judgment from harming others with the potentially deadly object. Those "control" measures are a good thing.

You can't legally drive a vehicle in this country without a license obtained by demonstrating knowledge of the road laws and ability to safely operate the vehicle, along with having secured liability insurance. Your driver's license is readily accessible to any police officer when you're stopped or questioned. Since you're comparing vehicles to firearms, would you then agree that a gun qualifications license (and possibly insurance) -- quickly and easily verified in a database by any law enforcement officer -- should also be required for all firearms owners across the country, Cutz?

How about the toddlers who get a hold of loaded guns in their homes and shoot themselves or others every week in this country. Do you think that little ones are just stupid and disobedient in those cases and that's that? Or, do you believe that adults should be responsible and required to safely store their guns and/or be prosecuted for negligence when small children are afforded access to firearms, Cutz?

Legally "responsible" and "mentally sound" people with no previous record of violence, crime or mental illness kill others with guns frequently. Heat of the moment. Unfounded or delusional anxiety/fear. Murderous/criminal intent. A running vehicle as a weapon in such instances is not nearly as feasible or common as a loaded gun.

Anyway, while I agree that there's no full solution and there will always be wrongful and accidental shooting deaths, I do believe that we should at least try harder to keep guns outta the hands of those identified as high risk when armed, for their own safety and the safety of others. That means better enforcement of existing gun laws and regulations. I have no objection to also considering new gun control measures that could result in fewer gun-related deaths. I consider those who flat out object to any such consideration, for any reason, to be limited in perspective.

You can try to hide it in as many words as you want but I see your plagiarism, Jenny. DUI laws, licenses, insurance, automobile/vehicle control laws...

867-5309.



Poke-poke.

(12-20-2014, 09:49 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]You can try to hide it in as many words as you want but I see your plagiarism, Jenny. DUI laws, licenses, insurance, automobile/vehicle control laws...

867-5309.



Poke-poke.

I'm starting to feel a lot like Gumby, Pokey.

Very odd that two people's minds would both go to DUI laws, licenses, insurance and such when MADD and vehicles are brought into a gun control discussion (again). What are the chances?

We are both brilliant (or masters of the obvious), that's what I think.