Firearms. Who or what is dangerous?


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Firearms. Who or what is dangerous?

Previous · 1 . . . 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 . . . 25 · Next
Author Message
Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,160,474
RAC: 80
United States
Message 1334696 - Posted: 4 Feb 2013, 20:20:05 UTC

It seems to me that while Schizophrenia may cause a person to be dangerous with

a gun, that any further comment is better addressed as a mental health issue.

no gun by itself is dangerous, it is the man or woman holding the gun that is

dangerous.

violence happens, and we need to address ways to mitigate that throwing tantrums

solves nothing.

yes mental health is broken, a man who was paranoid schizophrenic after being

hospitalized twice for being off his meds the week before strangled to death

a man in the same boarding house because he would not share cigarettes he then

cut the mans head off put it in a backpack and set it on a dumpster about 50

yards away.

this happened less than 50 yards from my house at the time.

needless to say we no longer have to worry about this nuisance because the law

can now deal with this problem, but it cost a life to get there.

the police knew he was a problem, the neighbors knew, I knew.

I reported him other neighbors reported him the police took him to Griffin the

local mental health facility twice in the 10 day prior. This still happened.

so yes the system is broken but what can be done?

Halfway houses can help and to some extent are being done but not nearly enough.
____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 13000
Credit: 7,666,159
RAC: 6,190
United States
Message 1334728 - Posted: 4 Feb 2013, 22:02:26 UTC - in response to Message 1334696.

the police knew he was a problem, the neighbors knew, I knew.

And that is the problem. Until there are bodies piling up, the system can't do anything. It has been forbidden to place a person in a rubber room so they can no longer be a danger to themselves or others. Until they prove they are a danger, e.g. dead bodies, no one can act. This has to change or we accept killing and mass killing.


____________

Message 1334737 - Posted: 4 Feb 2013, 23:03:19 UTC

This has to change or we accept killing and mass killing


Prefered Over A Nanny State/Gulag State.

IGNORE Say: USSR-Third Reich-Dictatorship-Tyranny-Hustlin'HusseinAsylum(LOL)
____________


Profile Jim_SProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 00
Posts: 4534
Credit: 19,067,602
RAC: 5,230
United States
Message 1334745 - Posted: 4 Feb 2013, 23:22:05 UTC

We NEED a Separate Thread to deal with Mental Illness...Some of these Posts have Nothing to do with Danger from Firearms...Just My Opinion.
____________

I Desire Peace and Justice, Jim Scott (Mod-Ret.)

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 13000
Credit: 7,666,159
RAC: 6,190
United States
Message 1334749 - Posted: 4 Feb 2013, 23:31:38 UTC - in response to Message 1334745.

We NEED a Separate Thread to deal with Mental Illness...Some of these Posts have Nothing to do with Danger from Firearms...Just My Opinion.

A firearm is an inanimate object. It only becomes dangerous when held in the hand. Hands generally are attached to human minds. It is the same subject.

____________

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9258
Credit: 1,547,289
RAC: 949
United States
Message 1334751 - Posted: 4 Feb 2013, 23:38:40 UTC - in response to Message 1334749.

We NEED a Separate Thread to deal with Mental Illness...Some of these Posts have Nothing to do with Danger from Firearms...Just My Opinion.

A firearm is an inanimate object. It only becomes dangerous when held in the hand. Hands generally are attached to human minds. It is the same subject.


Agreed on all points.
It was, in fact, the meaning/point behind IDs titling of the thread.

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8748
Credit: 25,598,847
RAC: 8,151
United Kingdom
Message 1334881 - Posted: 5 Feb 2013, 8:18:17 UTC

The problem as I see it is a combined firearms/mental health problem. But as you can never anticipate when a person is going to have a mental health breakdown then it becomes apparent that the firearms must be controlled. About a quarter of all people have a diagnosed mental health problem each year, usually a mild case of depression or similar, but not in all cases, especially if combined with illegal drugs.

If in any one year 0.000001% of the population of the USA has a mental breakdown that makes them think they should sort out the problem by shooting other people and they have access to a semi-automatic weapon then we have three multiple killings a year.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 13000
Credit: 7,666,159
RAC: 6,190
United States
Message 1334935 - Posted: 5 Feb 2013, 14:55:45 UTC - in response to Message 1334881.

You need to get rid of a couple zeros to just get to the number in a single major city in the USA in a year. The USA has around 100 major cities, so take two more zeros away.
____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 13000
Credit: 7,666,159
RAC: 6,190
United States
Message 1335681 - Posted: 8 Feb 2013, 4:40:32 UTC

Breakdown?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21373264
The Manifesto.
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/feature?section=news/local/orange_county&id=8983607

____________

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9258
Credit: 1,547,289
RAC: 949
United States
Message 1335875 - Posted: 8 Feb 2013, 19:18:56 UTC - in response to Message 1330795.

Oh, by the way...

All the latest shootings of the mass type, movie house, and schools, were done by people who came from VERY liberal families.

Just sayin...


Yeah, his mama liberally took him out to the gun range quite often, and then liberally lay down to let him shoot her.

Not just saying, except for the lay/lie down thingy.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1335976 - Posted: 9 Feb 2013, 1:00:32 UTC

Intent of the law is all that matters...

James Madison in Federalist No. 46 wrote:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can adm...it of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

Justice Story (appointed to the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice by James Madison in 1811), wrote a constitutional commentary in 1833 ("Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States"). Regarding the Second Amendment, he wrote:

The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
____________
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9258
Credit: 1,547,289
RAC: 949
United States
Message 1335997 - Posted: 9 Feb 2013, 2:24:52 UTC

What is free speech here? It's called--banished!
Why is it called banished? Because socialist don't understand free speech.
Why don't they understand free speech? They are sheeple.

Terror Australis
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1759
Credit: 206,464,844
RAC: 10,657
Australia
Message 1336029 - Posted: 9 Feb 2013, 5:05:00 UTC - in response to Message 1335976.

The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Maybe the crux of the argument is in those first three words ?

It would appear that they give the government the power to regulate the militia. i.e. The government could make it compulsory for a gun owner to be a member of a registered militia group and to attend training once a month, rather than the current "open slather" approach.

T.A.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1336064 - Posted: 9 Feb 2013, 6:24:55 UTC - in response to Message 1336029.
Last modified: 9 Feb 2013, 6:27:57 UTC

The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Maybe the crux of the argument is in those first three words ?

It would appear that they give the government the power to regulate the militia. i.e. The government could make it compulsory for a gun owner to be a member of a registered militia group and to attend training once a month, rather than the current "open slather" approach.

T.A.


It is much the same in my state Constitution. As a matter of fact a Federal Judge told my state they had 180 days to allow the citizen to carry a weapon, concealed. If my elected did not the Judge will do it for them.

In my Federal Constitution there is to be no STANDING army within my Country. This leads to it's misuse. Ergo the Posse Comitatus Act. I'm so sure that someone will speak out of turn here that I will correct it now so no one will make a mistake. We have had a standing Navy, it was meant to be so even in our founding, shipping needs 100% protection, as much as we can anyhow, our founders knew that. In this day and age we can see that need also in the air--for the same reason. However, a standing army isn't something we need. A hardened militia standing on their own ground cannot be beaten. They will hold till the numbers are in their favor.

This is wholly the reason and intent of the law. This is a right, a given, as I believe and will not bend on, a God given right. The Bill of Rights are NOTHING that can be bartered on. There is NO give or take on such things. The Rule of Law is not fungible nor is it a LIVING document that changes with the times. Man has not changed, what motivates mankind has not changed since the dawn of time. Why would one think that such laws written in the 16th and 17th century would need to change? And I can see the mouths open and mistakes made once again, so I will correct their mistakes now before they make fools of themselves again. I'm not a sexist either. Nor was our founders, some yes. Just like slavery many wanted full rights to all--people. So, so many battles, just like the slavery issue would have torn this Country apart before it even began. Our founders wrote the Constitution as a SET law, but allowed us to change it and the very act of change is SO hard that we all MUST really want it. We did, that battle was fought later and won.

Our PERSONAL rights are within our Bill of Rights. When people band together as a town, city, and later state does not our rights also reflect in numbers. Does not the state and nation use them rights collectively? In the basics, yes but just the basics. But it is in the breaking of them rights down to the one, that we are allowed true freedom. And the militia tells the government the rights of the freeman. It isn't the other way around.
____________
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 13000
Credit: 7,666,159
RAC: 6,190
United States
Message 1338960 - Posted: 16 Feb 2013, 21:29:51 UTC

FOSS is good ... Free CAD is better!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iwkX8sWSxNQ
Just hit print!

____________

Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,160,474
RAC: 80
United States
Message 1340604 - Posted: 24 Feb 2013, 23:58:32 UTC - in response to Message 1338960.
Last modified: 25 Feb 2013, 0:01:24 UTC

if printable guns do not make arguments for gun control obsolete what does?

this is ever more so for high power air guns.
____________

Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,160,474
RAC: 80
United States
Message 1340608 - Posted: 25 Feb 2013, 0:16:09 UTC - in response to Message 1336029.

The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Maybe the crux of the argument is in those first three words ?

It would appear that they give the government the power to regulate the militia. i.e. The government could make it compulsory for a gun owner to be a member of a registered militia group and to attend training once a month, rather than the current "open slather" approach.

T.A.



the English language is a wonderful and intricate thing

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

this is the actual way that the second amendment is written if you look at where the commas are you will notice that there is 2 more that what you wrote, and as any English teacher will tell you commas are used to separate concepts.

these the concepts are

1 a well regulated militia is necessary

2. that all states should be free in and of themselves


3. that and armed populace is necessarily to insure the first 2


as such although our founding fathers felt that a militia was necessary it is a separate concept from whether or not we should be able to keep and bare arms.
____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 13000
Credit: 7,666,159
RAC: 6,190
United States
Message 1341311 - Posted: 27 Feb 2013, 17:24:01 UTC

Another USA only problem ...
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/27/world/europe/switzerland-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

An employee killed two other people before fatally shooting himself at a lumber plant near the central Swiss city of Lucerne on Wednesday, local media reported.

Police said seven people were hurt in the attack, six of them seriously, according to the Lucerne-based daily Neue Luzerner Zeitung.


____________

Profile betregerProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 2594
Credit: 5,391,421
RAC: 3,388
United States
Message 1341354 - Posted: 27 Feb 2013, 20:31:12 UTC

IMO, people who are unable to control their temper should not own weapons.
____________

Previous · 1 . . . 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 . . . 25 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Firearms. Who or what is dangerous?

Copyright © 2014 University of California