zappaisgod said:

I have lots of guns.  I've never shot even one person and only a very few animals.  The difference between me and people who do?  I'm not insane.  And it is a historical fact that the libs forced the closing of the asylums.

---

zappaisgod said:

It has been pointed out by a few people that Micheal Bloomburg, who is one of the strongest advocates of gun prohibition in the country, travels with armed guards everywhere he goes.

---

Eddeee said:

To Zappaisgod Im not saying that these  killers are main stream. What im trying to convey is that our society is full of violence in every way and it is pushed onto us dally.

---

Prisoner#1 said:

why should I have to go through a psych eval to buy a gun? I have no history
of violence, no history of substance abuse, I'm an upstanding member of my
community... will you be paying for this psych eval?

---

Quote:

what disqualifies someone from owning a firearm under your idea, being on
antidepressants? maybe bipolar meds, as you stated earlier, having visited
a psychiatrist seems to lead you to believe a person to be crazy. maybe we
should include those that have had alcohol on the crazy list

---

Under my idea? I'm not exactly a mental health professional so I don't think I'm qualified to speak on this. There are predefined criteria for psychiatrists evaluating whether someone is a danger to themselves or others, and of course just being on medication, especially if the meds are working, isn't indication enough that someone will go on a mass killing spree. I don't know why you brought up the alcohol thing, probably to make my argument seem less valid but obviously there's no modern standard that considers someone who has had an alcoholic drink in their life "crazy."

I really don't appreciate the constant twisting of my words that has been a trademark of this thread. I simply stated that if you're seeing a psychiatrist, a mental health professional, you believe you may be unstable in some way or that you need help getting through some mental health issues. I never said this was a bad thing or that it makes you insane.

Quote:

after fitting any of these criteria, it may be only the christian
fundamentalists that are allowed to own guns, now wont that be swell

---

Christian fundamentalists are some of the most unstable people I've ever met.

koods said:

There is no way to guarantee those guns will not be used in a horrific way. You can't control them.

---

He probably has a gun safe...

Eddeee said:

To Zappaisgod Im not saying that these  killers are main stream. What im trying to convey is that our society is full of violence in every way and it is pushed onto us dally. and for those that may be a bit afflicted may go off and do the unthinkable. Im not for gun control but moral responsibility.

---

JoieDeVivre said:

Christian fundamentalists are some of the most unstable people I've ever met.

---

koods said:

zappaisgod said:

It has been pointed out by a few people that Micheal Bloomburg, who is one of the strongest advocates of gun prohibition in the country, travels with armed guards everywhere he goes.

---

I believe you asked someone if they knew what a straw man argument was... Well, this is a wonderful example.

---

How is it a straw man to point out that many of the most vociferous proponents of gun restrictions travel with armed guards?

zappaisgod said:

Eddeee said:

To Zappaisgod Im not saying that these  killers are main stream. What im trying to convey is that our society is full of violence in every way and it is pushed onto us dally. and for those that may be a bit afflicted may go off and do the unthinkable. Im not for gun control but moral responsibility.

---

I am 100% for personal moral responsibility.  Do you know who isn't?  Mike Huckabee, who thinks that all morality stems from a fear of punishment rather than a desire to do the right thing.  The snakes that must wrestle in his head are fearsome to contemplate.

---

Just look at his family

JoieDeVivre said:

I really don't appreciate the constant twisting of my words that has been a trademark of this thread. I simply stated that if you're seeing a psychiatrist, a mental health professional, you believe you may be unstable in some way or that you need help getting through some mental health issues. I never said this was a bad thing or that it makes you insane.

---

Shill said:

Just look at his family

---

. . .

zappaisgod said:

I don't think you know what the word "unstable" means.  And I believe you did say that you think seeing a psychiatrist for anything should disqualify you from owning a gun.

---

In this case I use the word unstable to mean irregular and/or  characterized by lack of emotional control. No, I never once said that seeing a psychiatrist alone is enough to disqualify you from owning a gun. Once again, trying to twist my words. I did say that most people involved in mass shootings had seen a psychiatrist before or were believed to have some sort of mental disorder.

koods said:

zappaisgod said:

I have lots of guns.  I've never shot even one person and only a very few animals.  The difference between me and people who do?  I'm not insane.  And it is a historical fact that the libs forced the closing of the asylums.

---

There is no way to guarantee those guns will not be used in a horrific way. You can't control them. They could be stolen. Someone you trust may not be trustworthy. You may not see the danger in someone because you love them and refuse to believe they could hurt someone. You could develop a mental illness. Your children or children of your friends could be motivated by fascination to find a way to get their hands on them.

---

Shill said:

Just look at his family

---

koods said:

zappaisgod said:

I have lots of guns.  I've never shot even one person and only a very few animals.  The difference between me and people who do?  I'm not insane.  And it is a historical fact that the libs forced the closing of the asylums.

---

There is no way to guarantee those [automobiles/drugs/hacksaws/ropes/whatever] will not be used in a horrific way. You can't control them. They could be stolen. Someone you trust may not be trustworthy. You may not see the danger in someone because you love them and refuse to believe they could hurt someone. You could develop a mental illness. Your children or children of your friends could be motivated by fascination to find a way to get their hands on them.

I have no doubt that many owners of [automobiles/drugs/hacksaws/ropes/whatever] that end up being used to murder people felt the same way you do. You think you are the definition of responsible. But, the mere fact that you have "lots of [automobiles/drugs/hacksaws/ropes/whatever]" means you could be unwitting link in a chain of events that ends with tragedy. The only truly responsible action is to not have these [automobiles/drugs/hacksaws/ropes/whatever]. You have the freedom to own [automobiles/drugs/hacksaws/ropes/whatever], but you also have the freedom to not own them.

Those [automobiles/drugs/hacksaws/ropes/whatever] are a threat to others, and even a threat to yourself.

---

zappaisgod said:

koods said:

zappaisgod said:

The problem is not the tool.  The problem is that this shit was allowed to roam free.

---

Anyone could be a mass killer. It is so easy to say "The problem is that this shit was allowed to roam free" after the fact. He is clearly a shit, I mean... he killed 27 people.  Who knew he was that kind of shit on two days ago, or two weeks ago. And you can't lock up everyone who could potentially go on a spree.

I'm going to assume you believe gun ownership is about freedoms and individual rights. You are arguing that we violate a persons right to due process and protections from unreasonable suspicion (5th and 4th amendments) for being weird or even acting unstable (1st ammendment protected behaviors) just to preserve a radical interpretation of the 2nd ammendment.

Short of making specific threats, you can't simply lock people up. We can take these guns out of the community and prevent their manufacture, sale, and ownership because you do not have any right to them. The second ammendment has never been interpreted that way.

---

Not everybody could be a mass killer.  Could you?  I could not.  I certainly could have the means and the ability but I could never have the depravity.  You? 

We cannot take the guns out.  It is a pipe dream.  It is completely impossible.  You have to be utterly delusional to even propose it.  Put the fucking nuts under strict supervision.  The ACLU is responsible for more deaths than the NRA could even dream of if it dreamt of such heinous shit.  I would prefer violating the rights of identifiable nutlogs than of everybody else.

---