The Greatest Gun Bill Ever

[Cannabis Islands]

And that is why guns owners should be trained and licensed. and that does not change the fact that guns are made to kill.

Certain firearms are.

I don't think that I am speaking about you. You were in the military, you received training, therefore you, Paddy, are qualified to own a gun.

Your reasoning is pretty shit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidal_Malik_Hasan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington ... d_shooting

Because I think if someone wants to teach their minor how to use a gun, it should be their parents, family member or by private classes until they reach the age of majority.

And military service was pushed on us at a young age in my school, paddy. Recruiters were at the high school almost every week. I believe that is your getting at, correct?

No.
He's getting at NRA shooting classes which used to be delivered at schools some decades ago.

And this gets to my second point. People with mental health issues should not own a firearm. And I think one can say that all of the people you listed had mental health issues. And if the right does not want schools to be teaching about certain things, like climate change or evolution , then why in the hell do you want the NRA in the classroom?

It seems that the right does not want any regulation on guns, at all. Why is that? Even the fucking NRA agrees with the fact that people with mental with issues should not own a gun.

[WestRedMaple]

You know what will stop mass shootings? Targets that fire back.

Which is funny, considering 1.6% of all mass shootings were solved by civilian interventionism with the past 30 years.

That means once

in 2 other cases civilians subdued the murderer after the shooting had already happened.....which is murder and led to that man never having a trial.

So no, arming everyone wont solve a damn thing.

That doesn't really follow.

Many mass shootings couldn't be stopped by legal civilian intervention, since they happened in places where that civilian having a firearm would be illegal.

Of the remaining, many would happen in places where there were no armed civilians (since a large majority of Americans do not carry), hence rendering them incapable of shooting back.

Only in a very small number of cases are they in a place where a civilian is legally carrying a firearm. To say that 'since so few people are armed and in a position to do anything, arming more people wouldn't help' is completely illogical


Another obvious problem is the fact that you honestly have no idea how many mass shootings were 'solved' by civilian intervention, given that any case solved early enough fails to ever become a mass shooting.

[Gauthier]

It seems that the right does not want any regulation on guns, at all. Why is that? Even the fucking NRA agrees with the fact that people with mental with issues should not own a gun.

Because they want to ramp up the market on guns. If any unstable asshole can get a gun without much hassel, people who want to feel safe feel pressured to either buy guns themselves, or move away. Either approach appeals to gun fanatics.

[WestRedMaple]

Certain firearms are.
Your reasoning is pretty shit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidal_Malik_Hasan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington ... d_shooting
No.
He's getting at NRA shooting classes which used to be delivered at schools some decades ago.

And this gets to my second point. People with mental health issues should not own a firearm. And I think one can say that all of the people you listed had mental health issues. And if the right does not want schools to be teaching about certain things, like climate change or evolution , then why in the hell do you want the NRA in the classroom?

It seems that the right does not want any regulation on guns, at all. Why is that? Even the fucking NRA agrees with the fact that people with mental with issues should not own a gun.

Mental health issue =/= should not have a firearm. There are many mental health issues which pose no threat. It would certainly disqualify quite a large portion of the military and law enforcement: phobia of starfish? bam, disqualified. Bulimic? bam, disqualified.

[Gauthier]

And this gets to my second point. People with mental health issues should not own a firearm. And I think one can say that all of the people you listed had mental health issues. And if the right does not want schools to be teaching about certain things, like climate change or evolution , then why in the hell do you want the NRA in the classroom?

It seems that the right does not want any regulation on guns, at all. Why is that? Even the fucking NRA agrees with the fact that people with mental with issues should not own a gun.

Mental health issue =/= should not have a firearm. There are many mental health issues which pose no threat. It would certainly disqualify quite a large portion of the military and law enforcement: phobia of starfish? bam, disqualified. Bulimic? bam, disqualified.

Schitzophrenia? No problem, here's your AR-15!

[Cannabis Islands]

It seems that the right does not want any regulation on guns, at all. Why is that? Even the fucking NRA agrees with the fact that people with mental with issues should not own a gun.

Because they want to ramp up the market on guns. If any unstable asshole can get a gun without much hassel, people who want to feel safe feel pressured to either buy guns themselves, or move away. Either approach appeals to gun fanatics.

But I'm not even fucking speaking about banning semi-autos or mag clip limits. I'm speaking about people with mental health issues and people that have a history of senseless violence should not be able to own a gun. Most of the gun owners on this thread would most likely not be effected at all. All gun owners that I know won't be effected at all, and all gun owners that I personally know don't have a problem with banning certain people from owning guns.

[WestRedMaple]

Mental health issue =/= should not have a firearm. There are many mental health issues which pose no threat. It would certainly disqualify quite a large portion of the military and law enforcement: phobia of starfish? bam, disqualified. Bulimic? bam, disqualified.

Schitzophrenia? No problem, here's your AR-15!

Schizophrenia is just one problem. Obviously it is not every mental health problem, which I'm sure is something of which you are already aware.

Do you in any way disagree with my statement that mental health issue =/= should not have a firearm?

[Cannabis Islands]

And this gets to my second point. People with mental health issues should not own a firearm. And I think one can say that all of the people you listed had mental health issues. And if the right does not want schools to be teaching about certain things, like climate change or evolution , then why in the hell do you want the NRA in the classroom?

It seems that the right does not want any regulation on guns, at all. Why is that? Even the fucking NRA agrees with the fact that people with mental with issues should not own a gun.

Mental health issue =/= should not have a firearm. There are many mental health issues which pose no threat. It would certainly disqualify quite a large portion of the military and law enforcement: phobia of starfish? bam, disqualified. Bulimic? bam, disqualified.

Yes! People with dangerous PTSD, no matter what their job background should not be able to own a gun. And part of this that I am shocked the right seemed to be against is more funding for mental health?

[Cannabis Islands]

Schitzophrenia? No problem, here's your AR-15!

Schizophrenia is just one problem. Obviously it is not every mental health problem, which I'm sure is something of which you are already aware.

Do you in any way disagree with my statement that mental health issue =/= should not have a firearm?

Yes, I agree. People with mental health issues should not be able to own a gun until they are cleared by a medical health professional. Rather than giving them a gun, they should be given treatment.

[WestRedMaple]

Mental health issue =/= should not have a firearm. There are many mental health issues which pose no threat. It would certainly disqualify quite a large portion of the military and law enforcement: phobia of starfish? bam, disqualified. Bulimic? bam, disqualified.

Yes! People with dangerous PTSD, no matter what their job background should not be able to own a gun. And part of this that I am shocked the right seemed to be against is more funding for mental health?

You didn't address my point.

Why do you think a phobia of starfish should disqualify someone from being able to keep or bear arms?

[The Conez Imperium]

Yes! People with dangerous PTSD, no matter what their job background should not be able to own a gun. And part of this that I am shocked the right seemed to be against is more funding for mental health?

You didn't address my point.

Why do you think a phobia of starfish should disqualify someone from being able to keep or bear arms?

A phobia of starfish would not likely cause harm to oneself or to others. Being Schizophrenic increases those chances drastically and if you give them guns, boy someone is going to be injured.

Schizophreniais a mental disorder often characterized by abnormal social behavior and failure to recognize what is real. Common symptoms include false beliefs, unclear or confused thinking, auditory hallucinations, reduced social engagement and emotional expression, and inactivity. Diagnosis is based on observed behavior and the person's reported experiences.

[Gauthier]

Yes! People with dangerous PTSD, no matter what their job background should not be able to own a gun. And part of this that I am shocked the right seemed to be against is more funding for mental health?

You didn't address my point.

Why do you think a phobia of starfish should disqualify someone from being able to keep or bear arms?

Especially if said someone starts seeing starfish everywhere and starts seeing people as starfish.



OH MY GOD KILL IT KILL IT KILL IT!!!!!

[Athiests4AnimalRights]

You didn't address my point.

Why do you think a phobia of starfish should disqualify someone from being able to keep or bear arms?

Especially if said someone starts seeing starfish everywhere and starts seeing people as starfish.

OH MY GOD KILL IT KILL IT KILL IT!!!!!

I now need to turn in my gun.

Thanks Gauthier.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Mental health issue =/= should not have a firearm. There are many mental health issues which pose no threat. It would certainly disqualify quite a large portion of the military and law enforcement: phobia of starfish? bam, disqualified. Bulimic? bam, disqualified.

Schitzophrenia? No problem, here's your AR-15!

It's called mental adjudication.
It determines whether one is a threat to themselves or others.
Those ruled such are already forbidden from purchasing firearms.

But way to hate up on those icky mentally ill people. That attitude matches well with your disgust over those icky poor or brown people having firearms.

[WestRedMaple]

You didn't address my point.

Why do you think a phobia of starfish should disqualify someone from being able to keep or bear arms?

A phobia of starfish would not likely cause harm to oneself or to others. Being Schizophrenic increases those chances drastically and if you give them guns, boy someone is going to be injured.

Schizophreniais a mental disorder often characterized by abnormal social behavior and failure to recognize what is real. Common symptoms include false beliefs, unclear or confused thinking, auditory hallucinations, reduced social engagement and emotional expression, and inactivity. Diagnosis is based on observed behavior and the person's reported experiences.

That's great, but given the fact that I'm aware of the meaning of each thing, you don't appear to have any actual point.

[Anonymous Proxy]

At the very least, is there any reason why being a violent criminal or having certain mental disorders can't be marked on your drivers license, and there be a basic ID check at point of sale? The ID could have a a barcode which is quickly scanned and checked against a database which gun stores and gun shows have as-needed access to. But on top of this, I don't see what's wrong with requiring people take a class before they buy guns (military and police training acceptable) as well as be an adult. That's basically what handgun permits are.

[WestRedMaple]

You didn't address my point.

Why do you think a phobia of starfish should disqualify someone from being able to keep or bear arms?

Especially if said someone starts seeing starfish everywhere and starts seeing people as starfish.



OH MY GOD KILL IT KILL IT KILL IT!!!!!

Which is, undeniably, irrelevant to my point

[Cannabis Islands]

Schitzophrenia? No problem, here's your AR-15!

It's called mental adjudication.
It determines whether one is a threat to themselves or others.
Those ruled such are already forbidden from purchasing firearms.

But way to hate up on those icky mentally ill people. That attitude matches well with your disgust over those icky poor or brown people having firearms.

No, it that people with mental health issues that have a threat to themselves or others should not own a gun. And way to hate them up by not wanting to give them treatment, unless they can pay for it.

[Cannabis Islands]

Yes! People with dangerous PTSD, no matter what their job background should not be able to own a gun. And part of this that I am shocked the right seemed to be against is more funding for mental health?

You didn't address my point.

Why do you think a phobia of starfish should disqualify someone from being able to keep or bear arms?

See my pervious post.

[Nord Amour]

You didn't address my point.

Why do you think a phobia of starfish should disqualify someone from being able to keep or bear arms?

A phobia of starfish would not likely cause harm to oneself or to others. Being Schizophrenic increases those chances drastically and if you give them guns, boy someone is going to be injured.

Schizophreniais a mental disorder often characterized by abnormal social behavior and failure to recognize what is real. Common symptoms include false beliefs, unclear or confused thinking, auditory hallucinations, reduced social engagement and emotional expression, and inactivity. Diagnosis is based on observed behavior and the person's reported experiences.

Your post is disturbingly misleading.

"
In a study of crimes committed by people with serious mental disorders, only 7.5 percent were directly related to symptoms of mental illness, according to new research. Researchers analyzed 429 crimes committed by 143 offenders with three major types of mental illness and found that 3 percent of their crimes were directly related to symptoms of major depression, 4 percent to symptoms of schizophrenia disorders and 10 percent to symptoms of bipolar disorder."- Science Daily

Illness is not the cause of violence. Violence is the illness.

[WestRedMaple]

You didn't address my point.

Why do you think a phobia of starfish should disqualify someone from being able to keep or bear arms?

See my pervious post.

Yes, I notice that you've changed your statement. I do agree with your new one

[The Conez Imperium]

A phobia of starfish would not likely cause harm to oneself or to others. Being Schizophrenic increases those chances drastically and if you give them guns, boy someone is going to be injured.

Your post is disturbingly misleading.

"
In a study of crimes committed by people with serious mental disorders, only 7.5 percent were directly related to symptoms of mental illness, according to new research. Researchers analyzed 429 crimes committed by 143 offenders with three major types of mental illness and found that 3 percent of their crimes were directly related to symptoms of major depression, 4 percent to symptoms of schizophrenia disorders and 10 percent to symptoms of bipolar disorder."- Science Daily

Illness is not the cause of violence. Violence is the illness.

Then how do we treat the violence? Allow them the ability to have a gun? Allow them the ability to own a gun while in treatment? Unless a doctor can diagnose someone as being Schizophrenic while having little chance of the intent to harm oneself then others I don't think giving them guns will help.

[Nord Amour]

Then how do we treat the violence? Allow them the ability to have a gun? Allow them the ability to own a gun while in treatment? Unless a doctor can diagnose someone as being Schizophrenic while having little chance of the intent to harm oneself then others I don't think giving them guns will help.

I meant "violence is the illness" in a literal sense. I am convinced that the current evidence shows two key things:

- Schizophrenia and other common mental illnesses generally do little to contribute to violence on their own.

- Violence is an independent disease-state of the mind.

In Free Will, Sam Harris entertains the philosophical/scientific position of determinism and its possible effects on the legal system, specifically in areas where possible motives might be investigated. It is becoming increasingly clear that upbringing, genetics, and personal neurology all closely affect the development of a violent individual. There is, for example, now evidence that withholding high levels of monamine oxidise A (MAOA) protects a person from developing violent propensities[1].

So here's my point. If A.) traditional mental illnesses have little impact on violent or criminal behavior and B.) the individual cannot control his/her actions, then we reach the point where I can demonstrate my conclusion.

"A mental illness is a medical condition that disrupts a person's thinking, feeling, mood, ability to relate to others and daily functioning." - NAMI [2]

Therefore violence itself could be considered a mental illness. Am I a neuroscientist? No. How do we cure violence? Bugger if I know. But my point is that it's important for people to understand the true causes of violence, and judging from the statistics I'm not sure its fair to take weapons from schizophrenics. Rather, we should be investigating ways to test for "violence."

[1] http://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal. ... tract?cc=y

[2] http://www.nami.org/template.cfm?section=By_Illness

[The Conez Imperium]

Then how do we treat the violence? Allow them the ability to have a gun? Allow them the ability to own a gun while in treatment? Unless a doctor can diagnose someone as being Schizophrenic while having little chance of the intent to harm oneself then others I don't think giving them guns will help.

I meant "violence is the illness" in a literal sense. I am convinced that the current evidence shows two key things:

- Schizophrenia and other common mental illnesses generally do little to contribute to violence on their own.

- Violence is an independent disease-state of the mind.

In Free Will, Sam Harris entertains the philosophical/scientific position of determinism and its possible effects on the legal system, specifically in areas where possible motives might be investigated. It is becoming increasingly clear that upbringing, genetics, and personal neurology all closely affect the development of a violent individual. There is, for example, now evidence that withholding high levels of monamine oxidise A (MAOA) protects a person from developing violent propensities[1].

So here's my point. If A.) traditional mental illnesses have little impact on violent or criminal behavior and B.) the individual cannot control his/her actions, then we reach the point where I can demonstrate my conclusion.

"A mental illness is a medical condition that disrupts a person's thinking, feeling, mood, ability to relate to others and daily functioning." - NAMI [2]

Therefore violence itself could be considered a mental illness. Am I a neuroscientist? No. How do we cure violence? Bugger if I know. But my point is that it's important for people to understand the true causes of violence, and judging from the statistics I'm not sure its fair to take weapons from schizophrenics. Rather, we should be investigating ways to test for "violence."

[1] http://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal. ... tract?cc=y

[2] http://www.nami.org/template.cfm?section=By_Illness

I guess I interpreted your statement differently and got carried away talking about something else. I have no issues with your statement, it is logical. We should get back to the thread before we are accused of thread jacking.

[Spirit of Hope]

At the very least, is there any reason why being a violent criminal or having certain mental disorders can't be marked on your drivers license, and there be a basic ID check at point of sale? The ID could have a a barcode which is quickly scanned and checked against a database which gun stores and gun shows have as-needed access to. But on top of this, I don't see what's wrong with requiring people take a class before they buy guns (military and police training acceptable) as well as be an adult. That's basically what handgun permits are.

On the bar code idea, not my first choice but nothing against it. Store purchases already run a background check that will catch those problems, so long as they are already noted, but for person to person transfers not a big problem.

Classes aren't really necessary because of the 30,000 gun deaths less than 1,000 are accidents, and a number of those trace back to people finding guns and doing something stupid. The remaining deaths aren't likely to be reduced by training, besides the fact that it will make getting a handgun harder.

You know what will stop mass shootings? Targets that fire back.

Which is funny, considering 1.6% of all mass shootings were solved by civilian interventionism with the past 30 years.

That means once

in 2 other cases civilians subdued the murderer after the shooting had already happened.....which is murder and led to that man never having a trial.

So no, arming everyone wont solve a damn thing.

This very nice study has a lot of interesting things to say about mass shootings.

Notably of the 160 incidents 5 incidents involved a civilian with a gun engaging and stopping the shooter. Another 2 incidents involved armed off duty cops. 21 incidents involved non armed civilians stopping the shooter.

As another interesting fact in 37 incidents the shooter committed suicide before the cops arrived, and another 17 involved the shooter committing suicide after the police arrived.

In 45 incidents police engaged the shooter, of which another 9 involved the shooter committing suicide.

What does that tell us? Most of the time everything is over by the time the police have arrived, so the police are going to have little to no effect on the shooting. So the best bet for survival is either to get away as quickly as possible or end the shooting. One of the most effective tools a person can have in this situation is a gun. They don't even have to use it (one of those incidents involves an armed individual making the choice not to shoot).