Gun Control III - the Gunnening

[The Two Jerseys]

Denying people a gun for having "intrusive thoughts" is straight-up bullshit, because everyone has them, and the vast majority of people have no problem ignoring them.

Not just intrusive thoughts, violent intrusive thoughts.

The kind of shit I had.

Guess what: violent intrusive thoughts are still extremely common, and the vast majority still have no problem ignoring them.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Denying people a gun for having "intrusive thoughts" is straight-up bullshit, because everyone has them, and the vast majority of people have no problem ignoring them.

Not just intrusive thoughts, violent intrusive thoughts.

The kind of shit I had.

Literally everyone has those.

[Albrenia]

Not just intrusive thoughts, violent intrusive thoughts.

The kind of shit I had.

Literally everyone has those.

Uhm... no they don't. It's probably way more common than people report, but it's not literally everyone.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Literally everyone has those.

Uhm... no they don't.

Yeah they do.

[Albrenia]

Uhm... no they don't.

Yeah they do.

Like, the whole 'intrusive thoughts' thing of feeling compelled to do something, like you believe you'll die or something if you don't do this urgent thing?

Because I've had them and they don't feel like an everyday thing to me.

[Mike the Progressive]

To be honest, I think until all guns are banned outright you'll continue to see police officers shooting people (esp. minorities) on accident.

[Manokan Republic]

To be honest, I think until all guns are banned outright you'll continue to see police officers shooting people (esp. minorities) on accident.

What if they assume the guy has a knife, is in a truck driving at them, or it merely looks like they have a gun? As long as the black market for guns continue, there will always be people with guns, and that will be enough to make people think someone might have a gun.

[Kernen]

This is relevant...how?

It should be obvious.

A youtube meme isn't relevant to a policy debate. Try again.

They do but not as frequently as the US.

At the very least not in recent history.

Which was not what you or your link claimed. Those goalposts look pretty light, the way you're shifting them around.

[Kernen]

I’d decide it on a case by case basis and by “I”, I mean the individual in question’s psychiatrist and a judge. Not comfortable with restricting someone’s rights without due process. Before we get even that far, though, we have to reduce the stigma and cost for seeking psychiatric help in the first place.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Every first time gun buyer should be given an examination by a psychiatrist. If they find violent tendencies (Ie intrusive thoughts ect) then give a request to a judge to temporarily suspend 2A rights.

And we really need to do both of those things.

Except that *is* a violation of due process rights. It violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by discriminating against first time buyers, a group which is categorically and arbitrarily chosen from the general population. That violates two amendments on their face, and would be subject to some pretty strict scrutiny, which means the policy is presumptively unconstitutional.

#legalresearchisathing

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I couldn't agree with you more.

Every first time gun buyer should be given an examination by a psychiatrist. If they find violent tendencies (Ie intrusive thoughts ect) then give a request to a judge to temporarily suspend 2A rights.

And we really need to do both of those things.

Except that *is* a violation of due process rights. It violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by discriminating against first time buyers, a group which is categorically and arbitrarily chosen from the general population. That violates two amendments on their face, and would be subject to some pretty strict scrutiny, which means the policy is presumptively unconstitutional.

#legalresearchisathing

Having people see a doctor before getting a gun is unconstitutional.

Welp, time to ban the US military and the cops for having a medical examination before issuing firearms.

Also, having people see a doctor violates the 14th Amendment... somehow beacuse it's discrimination...somehow.

It should be obvious.

A youtube meme isn't relevant to a policy debate. Try again.

They do but not as frequently as the US.

At the very least not in recent history.

Which was not what you or your link claimed. Those goalposts look pretty light, the way you're shifting them around.

It was just something funny I wanted to share with you guys.

The meme was an exaggeration.

Not just intrusive thoughts, violent intrusive thoughts.

The kind of shit I had.

Guess what: violent intrusive thoughts are still extremely common, and the vast majority still have no problem ignoring them.

And what? Are you saying that i'm weak for not 'ignoring' them?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

But the same principle applies.

biased sause = not good.

No. The same principle does not apply.

First of all because there's no such thing as an unbiased source.

Second of all because putting multiple PhDs on the same level as Alex Jones is just asinine.

Refute the central point. If it's such a biased source that it's obviously wrong then it should be a fairly simple matter.

A obviously biased sauce does not a good pasta make.

A person who has a big obvious bias means that there research may be skewed.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I'm sorry that I made you guys angry.

I didn't mean too.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Except that *is* a violation of due process rights. It violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by discriminating against first time buyers, a group which is categorically and arbitrarily chosen from the general population. That violates two amendments on their face, and would be subject to some pretty strict scrutiny, which means the policy is presumptively unconstitutional.

#legalresearchisathing

Having people see a doctor before getting a gun is unconstitutional.

Welp, time to ban the US military and the cops for having a medical examination before issuing firearms.

Also, having people see a doctor violates the 14th Amendment... somehow beacuse it's discrimination...somehow.

Joining the military or becoming a cop isn't a right. Bearing arms is however.

Discrimination comes in many shapes and sizes yes and that would be abused to hell and back.

[The Two Jerseys]

Except that *is* a violation of due process rights. It violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by discriminating against first time buyers, a group which is categorically and arbitrarily chosen from the general population. That violates two amendments on their face, and would be subject to some pretty strict scrutiny, which means the policy is presumptively unconstitutional.

#legalresearchisathing

Having people see a doctor before getting a gun is unconstitutional.

Welp, time to ban the US military and the cops for having a medical examination before issuing firearms.

Enlisting in the military and joining the police aren't constitutional rights.

Also, having people see a doctor violates the 14th Amendment... somehow beacuse it's discrimination...somehow.

Yes, the same reason why poll taxes and literacy tests for voters are discrimination.

A youtube meme isn't relevant to a policy debate. Try again.



Which was not what you or your link claimed. Those goalposts look pretty light, the way you're shifting them around.

It was just something funny I wanted to share with you guys.

The meme was an exaggeration.

Guess what: violent intrusive thoughts are still extremely common, and the vast majority still have no problem ignoring them.

And what? Are you saying that i'm weak for not 'ignoring' them?

Strawman!
Ah-ah-ah
Fighter of the Truth Man!
Ah-ah-ah
Champion of the Lie!
Ah-ah-ah
You're a Master of Deflection
And fallacy for everyone

No, I'm saying that it's bullshit grounds to deny someone from buying a gun.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Strawman!
Ah-ah-ah
Fighter of the Truth Man!
Ah-ah-ah
Champion of the Lie!
Ah-ah-ah
You're a Master of Deflection
And fallacy for everyone

No, I'm saying that it's bullshit grounds to deny someone from buying a gun.

I wasn't trying to be a Strawman.

Ok?

The thoughts that I had made me want to blow my brains out or go on a shooting spree almost every day.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Having people see a doctor before getting a gun is unconstitutional.

Welp, time to ban the US military and the cops for having a medical examination before issuing firearms.

Also, having people see a doctor violates the 14th Amendment... somehow beacuse it's discrimination...somehow.

Joining the military or becoming a cop isn't a right. Bearing arms is however.

Discrimination comes in many shapes and sizes yes and that would be abused to hell and back.

How?

It would require both a doctor and a judge to agree. If either one doesn't agree then the person's 2A rights are not suspended.

And, if you have no major mental problems, then you get your gun.

If you do have mental problems, but there not that big, then you get your gun.

If you have major mental problems yet the court allows the sale anyways, then you get your gun.

It's only a test you take once. That's it.

You pass it once, you can buy enough guns to wallpaper your house with them or stuff the furniture.

If you do have major mental problems and the court agrees to take those rights temporarily away, then you already started your path to mental health.

Either way, the consumer gets something beneficial from trying to get a gun.

The doctor and the Judge make money, the sale of firearms to people who don't go around and shoot up public spaces goes on as normal, and people who would shoot up public spaces get the help they need.

How is this not a win for everyone involved? If you pardon my idealism.

Look, i'm sorry that I made everyone on this thread hate me.

Just please don't hate me for putting my ideas out there.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Joining the military or becoming a cop isn't a right. Bearing arms is however.

Discrimination comes in many shapes and sizes yes and that would be abused to hell and back.

How?

It would require both a doctor and a judge to agree. If either one doesn't agree then the person's 2A rights are not suspended.

And, if you have no major mental problems, then you get your gun.

If you do have mental problems, but there not that big, then you get your gun.

If you have major mental problems yet the court allows the sale anyways, then you get your gun.

It's only a test you take once. That's it.

You pass it once, you can buy enough guns to wallpaper your house with them or stuff the furniture.

If you do have major mental problems and the court agrees to take those rights temporarily away, then you already started your path to mental health.

Either way, the consumer gets something beneficial from trying to get a gun.

The doctor and the Judge make money, the sale of firearms to people who don't go around and shoot up public spaces goes on as normal, and people who would shoot up public spaces get the help they need.

How is this not a win for everyone involved? If you pardon my idealism.

Look, i'm sorry that I made everyone on this thread hate me.

Just please don't hate me for putting my ideas out there.

It's not a win for us all Herp because some of us live in states run by people who don't like the right to bear arms and would make that process as long and expensive and arbitrary as possible to prevent people from buying guns. Look at the shit that goes on in California and New York.

[The New California Republic]

Look, i'm sorry that I made everyone on this thread hate me.

Just please don't hate me for putting my ideas out there.

I don't hate anyone on the forums. All the people I hate have either been DOS'd or left the forums forever.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

How?

It would require both a doctor and a judge to agree. If either one doesn't agree then the person's 2A rights are not suspended.

And, if you have no major mental problems, then you get your gun.

If you do have mental problems, but there not that big, then you get your gun.

If you have major mental problems yet the court allows the sale anyways, then you get your gun.

It's only a test you take once. That's it.

You pass it once, you can buy enough guns to wallpaper your house with them or stuff the furniture.

If you do have major mental problems and the court agrees to take those rights temporarily away, then you already started your path to mental health.

Either way, the consumer gets something beneficial from trying to get a gun.

The doctor and the Judge make money, the sale of firearms to people who don't go around and shoot up public spaces goes on as normal, and people who would shoot up public spaces get the help they need.

How is this not a win for everyone involved? If you pardon my idealism.

Look, i'm sorry that I made everyone on this thread hate me.

Just please don't hate me for putting my ideas out there.

It's not a win for us all Herp because some of us live in states run by people who don't like the right to bear arms and would make that process as long and expensive and arbitrary as possible to prevent people from buying guns. Look at the shit that goes on in California and New York.

Exactly why I think the state should pony up the dough for that one test.

As for the judge side of things, people can request a change of venue if they think there not getting a fair judgement.

The doctor would not be able to falsify a diagnosis beacuse of the hippocratic oath.

The doctors would be reminded to put there political opinions of guns aside or else they will get there medical license revoked.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It's not a win for us all Herp because some of us live in states run by people who don't like the right to bear arms and would make that process as long and expensive and arbitrary as possible to prevent people from buying guns. Look at the shit that goes on in California and New York.

Exactly why I think the state should pony up the dough for that one test.

As for the judge side of things, people can request a change of venue if they think there not getting a fair judgement.

The doctor would not be able to falsify a diagnosis beacuse of the hippocratic oath.

The doctors would be reminded to put there political opinions of guns aside or else they will get there medical license revoked.

And then California will declare it only has enough money to do 10% of the required tests and starts using that to stop people from buying guns.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Exactly why I think the state should pony up the dough for that one test.

As for the judge side of things, people can request a change of venue if they think there not getting a fair judgement.

The doctor would not be able to falsify a diagnosis beacuse of the hippocratic oath.

The doctors would be reminded to put there political opinions of guns aside or else they will get there medical license revoked.

And then California will declare it only has enough money to do 10% of the required tests and starts using that to stop people from buying guns.

Then the US would make Psychiatrist visits for this very reason free nation wide.

[Washington Resistance Army]

And then California will declare it only has enough money to do 10% of the required tests and starts using that to stop people from buying guns.

Then the US would make Psychiatrist visits for this very reason free nation wide.

Where are you gonna get the money to pay for that?

[Len Hyet]

No. The same principle does not apply.

First of all because there's no such thing as an unbiased source.

Second of all because putting multiple PhDs on the same level as Alex Jones is just asinine.

Refute the central point. If it's such a biased source that it's obviously wrong then it should be a fairly simple matter.

A obviously biased sauce does not a good pasta make.

A person who has a big obvious bias means that there research may be skewed.

Refute the central point. If it's such a biased source that it's obviously wrong then it should be a fairly simple matter.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Then the US would make Psychiatrist visits for this very reason free nation wide.

Where are you gonna get the money to pay for that?

US federal taxes.

TBH, I'd just get basic universal health care in all of the US to make all Psychiatrist visits regardless of reason free to the patient.

But that's a topic for another time.

Point is, if this law was Federal, mental health would sky rocket, happiness would improve, gun sales would stay the course, and shootings would go down.

I know this is idealist, I know it's me just being hopeful.
But, is it not worth a try?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

A person who has a big obvious bias means that there research may be skewed.

Refute the central point. If it's such a biased source that it's obviously wrong then it should be a fairly simple matter.

k

"In 2010, there were >16,000 homicide deaths in the United States, a rate of 5.3 per 100,000 population. "

"In 2010, the rate of homicide deaths in non-US high-income countries was 0.8 per 100,000 population and the firearm homicide rate was 0.1 per 100,000."