The Greatest Gun Bill Ever

[Gauthier]

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).

So a gun is a magic talisman that can end violence merely by being present?

[Spirit of Hope]

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).

So a gun is a magic talisman that can end violence merely by being present?

No a gun is a tool, that in the case of a mass shooting can be used in an attempt to stop that shooting. And given police response times, and general shooter behavior, it is only someone on the scene who is going to be able to react and attempt to stop the incident.

[Mike the Progressive]

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).

So a gun is a magic talisman that can end violence merely by being present?

There are instances where a firearm can come in handy. Not too far from where I live, a guy went into a bar and restaurant with a knife, pulled it out and started to threaten some female patrons. Waiter pulled out his gun, had somebody call the cops and kept the guy at gunpoint until they arrived. Could you imagine what could have happened had he not been armed?

But that's also based on the premise that a gun owner will always act rationally. I guess what I'm trying to say it's a bit of both. Guns aren't a magical device that will end violence as we know it, but neither are they a sign of the old wild west resurging.

[The Conez Imperium]

So a gun is a magic talisman that can end violence merely by being present?

No a gun is a tool, that in the case of a mass shooting can be used in an attempt to stop that shooting. And given police response times, and general shooter behavior, it is only someone on the scene who is going to be able to react and attempt to stop the incident.

What is general shooter behavior? Does that mean people who have a gun are inclined to use it when hold at gun-point?

[Imperializt Russia]

Like how Jared Loughner was shot down before he killed too many people... oh wait.

I had not heard of the armed citizens who fired back. I knew of the citizens who physically subdued him, but I had no idea there were armed good Samaritans. Please, regale me with the details.

He decided he didn't have a safe shot.
She he waited until Loughner was fumbling with his oversize magazine and tackled him to the ground with like three other people.

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.

Care to provide your numbers?
http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/au ... tatistics/
According to this piece, shootings stopped by civilians resulting in a drastically lower bodycount. Which makes plenty of sense anyway. The police, through no fault of their own, must actually arrive on-scene then develop an entrance strategy, if it's a rampage within a building. Police response takes time.

According to the FBI, in the last twelve years (well, 2000 to 2012), >17% of shootings were ended by civilian intervention, and only twice that proportion were physically stopped by the police (though a little over half of all shootings were ended after police arrival).
http://leb.fbi.gov/2014/january/active- ... 00-to-2012

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.

Don't know what you think you're arguing against, but it's certainly not something I said.

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!

I'm gonna go ahead and call strawman on that.

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?

What aspect of PTSD do you believe should disqualify people from ownership of a firearm?

[Warpspace]

Problem though. Under Californian law, my Grandfather can just hand me rifle or shotgun he bought as a gift to me, and it's completely legal and no background check is made for me.

Unless you're a person prohibited from owning firearms and he's aware of it, then he's committing a felony.

Except if a background check has never been done on a person, nobody would have any knowledge of what's going on.

The law's nice for allowing the handing down of heirlooms, but the loopholes are enormous.

[Imperializt Russia]

Unless you're a person prohibited from owning firearms and he's aware of it, then he's committing a felony.

Except if a background check has never been done on a person, nobody would have any knowledge of what's going on.

The law's nice for allowing the handing down of heirlooms, but the loopholes are enormous.

If you're a prohibited person, the police might start finding excuses to execute search warrants on your home. Many criminals do re-offend.
And of course, if that warrant turns up an illegal firearm...

[Burleson 2]

And how do we know that people have the knowledge to handle a gun? Guns are fucking tools that DO KILL PEOPLE. They are MADE TO KILL, cars are NOT made to kill.

You do realize that guns kill about as many people in the US as cars? and that two thirds of gun deaths in the US are suicides? And that cars injure about 2 million people while guns only injure about 80,000 people?

I'm far more worried about being killed by a car than by a gun.

Where are the liberal's calling for car control?

[Cannabis Islands]

I had not heard of the armed citizens who fired back. I knew of the citizens who physically subdued him, but I had no idea there were armed good Samaritans. Please, regale me with the details.

He decided he didn't have a safe shot.
She he waited until Loughner was fumbling with his oversize magazine and tackled him to the ground with like three other people.

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.

Care to provide your numbers?
http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/au ... tatistics/
According to this piece, shootings stopped by civilians resulting in a drastically lower bodycount. Which makes plenty of sense anyway. The police, through no fault of their own, must actually arrive on-scene then develop an entrance strategy, if it's a rampage within a building. Police response takes time.

According to the FBI, in the last twelve years (well, 2000 to 2012), >17% of shootings were ended by civilian intervention, and only twice that proportion were physically stopped by the police (though a little over half of all shootings were ended after police arrival).
http://leb.fbi.gov/2014/january/active- ... 00-to-2012

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.

Don't know what you think you're arguing against, but it's certainly not something I said.

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

I'm gonna go ahead and call strawman on that.

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?

What aspect of PTSD do you believe should disqualify people from ownership of a firearm?[/quote]

I said "dangerous" PTDS, meaning they have been reviewed by a mental health professional, and ruled a danger to themselves and/or others. And it appears that you are against those have been ruled a danger to themselves and/or others prohibited from owning and/or buying a gun. Why is that?

[Imperializt Russia]

Again, you don't seem to be arguing against anything I have actually said.
You're throwing "mental illness" and "PTSD" around as buzzwords. I'm asking you to establish what traits of mental illness in general (thereby specific aspects of specific conditions) and of PTSD you believe make a person dangerous.

[Cannabis Islands]

You do realize that guns kill about as many people in the US as cars? and that two thirds of gun deaths in the US are suicides? And that cars injure about 2 million people while guns only injure about 80,000 people?

I'm far more worried about being killed by a car than by a gun.

Where are the liberal's calling for car control?

There is car control. If a car is involved in a murder or any other crime, there is a license plate with a number that is tied to the owner. There are also things that a car owner must have in most U.S states, like insurance, tabs and must as far as I know, ever U.S requires all drivers to be licensed, and in order to be licensed, you have to pass a test provided by that most "evil" organization that the modern right all of a sudden believes is "evil", and that is the state.

That is an example of "car control"

[Cannabis Islands]

Again, you don't seem to be arguing against anything I have actually said.
You're throwing "mental illness" and "PTSD" around as buzzwords. I'm asking you to establish what traits of mental illness in general (thereby specific aspects of specific conditions) and of PTSD you believe make a person dangerous.

I will say it again and put it in bold. If a person is ruled by a mental health professional as a danger to themselves and/or others, then they should be prohibited from owning a gun. If a person has a history of violence, like spouse abuse, child abuse, violent outbursts that resulted in themselves or others in getting hurt and ETC.

According to your argument, one should be able to buy a firearm, even if they just were in the hospital for thinking about killing themselves and/or thinking about hurting/killing others, because they "haven't committed a crime yet". Is that your argument, why is that. I've done enough of explaining my points.

[Southern Hampshire]

Having a license doesn't mean the gun owner is less likely to use the gun irresponsibly. Look at drivers, people with drivers licenses get in car accidents all the time. A piece of paper isn't going to make it impossible for someone to be an idiot and shoot up a school.

And how do we know that people have the knowledge to handle a gun? Guns are fucking tools that DO KILL PEOPLE. They are MADE TO KILL, cars are NOT made to kill.

Libruls are attackin

So what guns are made to kill? They're also made to hunt and breach locks. Cars are meant to drive and kill.

I so not see the 'guns kill' argument. It's not even an argument. Manu objects kill.

[Cannabis Islands]

And how do we know that people have the knowledge to handle a gun? Guns are fucking tools that DO KILL PEOPLE. They are MADE TO KILL, cars are NOT made to kill.

Libruls are attackin

So what guns are made to kill? They're also made to hunt and breach locks. Cars are meant to drive and kill.

I so not see the 'guns kill' argument. It's not even an argument. Manu objects kill.

See my pervious posts on the issues of cars. And guns are tool that are used to kill people.

[Imperializt Russia]

Again, you don't seem to be arguing against anything I have actually said.
You're throwing "mental illness" and "PTSD" around as buzzwords. I'm asking you to establish what traits of mental illness in general (thereby specific aspects of specific conditions) and of PTSD you believe make a person dangerous.

I will say it again and put it in bold. If a person is ruled by a mental health professional as a danger to themselves and/or others, then they should be prohibited from owning a gun. If a person has a history of violence, like spouse abuse, child abuse, violent outbursts that resulted in themselves or others in getting hurt and ETC.

According to your argument, one should be able to buy a firearm, even if they just were in the hospital for thinking about killing themselves and/or thinking about hurting/killing others, because they "haven't committed a crime yet". Is that your argument, why is that. I've done enough of explaining my points.

Not according to my argument, since for the third time, I neither said nor suggested that.

[Southern Hampshire]

Libruls are attackin

So what guns are made to kill? They're also made to hunt and breach locks. Cars are meant to drive and kill.

I so not see the 'guns kill' argument. It's not even an argument. Manu objects kill.

See my pervious posts on the issues of cars. And guns are tool that are used to kill people.

I have. But that doesn't change the fact that cars kill. I want to know what you want to do to vehicles to make them less slaughterous.

Yes I know guns kill. They also have many other uses. What is your point, though?

[Imperializt Russia]

Libruls are attackin

So what guns are made to kill? They're also made to hunt and breach locks. Cars are meant to drive and kill.

I so not see the 'guns kill' argument. It's not even an argument. Manu objects kill.

See my pervious posts on the issues of cars. And guns are tool that are used to kill people.

By this argument, the overwhelming statistical majority of firearm owners in the United States continually misuse their firearms, on the basis that one in a quarter million rifles or shotguns are used to commit homicide in any given year.

[Cannabis Islands]

I will say it again and put it in bold. If a person is ruled by a mental health professional as a danger to themselves and/or others, then they should be prohibited from owning a gun. If a person has a history of violence, like spouse abuse, child abuse, violent outbursts that resulted in themselves or others in getting hurt and ETC.

According to your argument, one should be able to buy a firearm, even if they just were in the hospital for thinking about killing themselves and/or thinking about hurting/killing others, because they "haven't committed a crime yet". Is that your argument, why is that. I've done enough of explaining my points.

Not according to my argument, since for the third time, I neither said nor suggested that.

Then what is your argument then? I have already made multiple posts explaining why I don't want certain people to be able to purchase or own a firearm*

*notice I did not say anything about prohibiting certain types of firearms, which I don't believe in.

[Cannabis Islands]

See my pervious posts on the issues of cars. And guns are tool that are used to kill people.

I have. But that doesn't change the fact that cars kill. I want to know what you want to do to vehicles to make them less slaughterous.

Yes I know guns kill. They also have many other uses. What is your point, though?

Just like we prohibit certain types of people from driving and/or owning a car, the same should apply to guns. It's not even "gun control", its "people control". If you haven't been convicted of beating your spouse and/or children, have a history of random acts of violence, think about killing people that are not an immediate threat to you or your family, then you are not prohibited from owning a gun.

So, are you against that? And if so, why?

[Imperializt Russia]

I haven't made any statements on the topic.

I was merely calling out your use of "mental illness" as a buzzword disqualifier. As was pointed out by posters, arachnophobia is a mental illness (strictly, mental disorder, though the difference is blurred in popular use).
I don't believe you substantiated this sufficiently, hence why I kept pressing, but I suppose "as decided unfit on medical assessment" will do.

[Cannabis Islands]

I haven't made any statements on the topic.

I was merely calling out your use of "mental illness" as a buzzword disqualifier. As was pointed out by posters, arachnophobia is a mental illness (strictly, mental disorder, though the difference is blurred in popular use).
I don't believe you substantiated this sufficiently, hence why I kept pressing, but I suppose "as decided unfit on medical assessment" will do.

I said a person that is deemed a danger to themselves and to other people. For example, a person that thinks and wishes to commit mass murder, a person that beats his/her spouse and/or children, a person that commits random acts of violence, a person that has paranoid delusions are some examples.

[Imperializt Russia]

I haven't made any statements on the topic.

I was merely calling out your use of "mental illness" as a buzzword disqualifier. As was pointed out by posters, arachnophobia is a mental illness (strictly, mental disorder, though the difference is blurred in popular use).
I don't believe you substantiated this sufficiently, hence why I kept pressing, but I suppose "as decided unfit on medical assessment" will do.

I said a person that is deemed a danger to themselves and to other people. For example, a person that thinks and wishes to commit mass murder, a person that beats his/her spouse and/or children, a person that commits random acts of violence, a person that has paranoid delusions are some examples.

A person who makes statements about mass murder may turn out to be completely sane under clinical examination.

At school, I made such statements. I think it was because I became more popular as a novelty.
Had I been clinically examined by a psychologist, they'd have said I was talking shit.

Define "random act of violence". A person who gets in a bar brawl that one time? It's a reason to deny a concealed carry licence certainly, but not general firearms ownership, unless the person has a history of it - especially if they start the fights or are especially violent in the fights - ie, they go out to fight. In which case, it's also not a random act of violence.

Persons with a history of domestic violence should certainly be prevented from owning a firearm. Escalation of domestic arguments and abuses account for a worryingly large number of firearm homicides.

[Cannabis Islands]

I said a person that is deemed a danger to themselves and to other people. For example, a person that thinks and wishes to commit mass murder, a person that beats his/her spouse and/or children, a person that commits random acts of violence, a person that has paranoid delusions are some examples.

A person who makes statements about mass murder may turn out to be completely sane under clinical examination.

At school, I made such statements. I think it was because I became more popular as a novelty.
[i]Had I been clinically examined by a psychologist, they'd have said I was talking shit.[/i]

. Define "random act of violence". A person who gets in a bar brawl that one time? It's a reason to deny a concealed carry licence certainly, but not general firearms ownership, unless the person has a history of it - especially if they start the fights or are especially violent in the fights - ie, they go out to fight. In which case, it's also not a random act of violence.

Persons with a history of domestic violence should certainly be prevented from owning a firearm. Escalation of domestic arguments and abuses account for a worryingly large number of firearm homicides.

Notice I said that a person was to be reviewed by a metal health professional. And I don't know, but in the United States, saying shit like that will do more than having your 2nd amendment rights being taken away. No, I don't believe that a person that initiate fights should own a firearm, even if its for shits and giggles. If a person wants to go up to a complete stranger and punch them, then that person should be prohibited from owning a firearm.

Edit: And you claim your English, well because of the UK strict gun laws, UK nationals don't have deal with mass murder, such as school shooting as much as we Americans do. In America, a mentally ill person who just looks of age can buy a gun at a gun show without any background checks and commit mass murder. That is the reality that Americans, not the British or any other European has to deal with.

[Kernen]

Why not? This is how it works in Vermont, and they have no significant gun violence there. In fact, most places I'm aware of don't require a permit to open carry. Pennsylvania and North Carolina don't. Its the Concealed Carry that permits are necessary for.

Why, then, if this is normal and without issues in other states, is this such a big deal in Texas?

[Imperializt Russia]

A person who makes statements about mass murder may turn out to be completely sane under clinical examination.

At school, I made such statements. I think it was because I became more popular as a novelty.
[i]Had I been clinically examined by a psychologist, they'd have said I was talking shit.[/i]

. Define "random act of violence". A person who gets in a bar brawl that one time? It's a reason to deny a concealed carry licence certainly, but not general firearms ownership, unless the person has a history of it - especially if they start the fights or are especially violent in the fights - ie, they go out to fight. In which case, it's also not a random act of violence.

Persons with a history of domestic violence should certainly be prevented from owning a firearm. Escalation of domestic arguments and abuses account for a worryingly large number of firearm homicides.

Notice I said that a person was to be reviewed by a metal health professional. And I don't know, but in the United States, saying shit like that will do more than having your 2nd amendment rights being taken away. No, I don't believe that a person that initiate fights should own a firearm, even if its for shits and giggles. If a person wants to go up to a complete stranger and punch them, then that person should be prohibited from owning a firearm.

Edit: And you claim your English, well because of the UK strict gun laws, UK nationals don't have deal with mass murder, such as school shooting as much as we Americans do. In America, a mentally ill person who just looks of age can buy a gun at a gun show without any background checks and commit mass murder. That is the reality that Americans, not the British or any other European has to deal with.

It's not just an access issue, it's a cultural problem in the US.