Two questions, two million cries foul

[DeletedUser]

"We can't tolerate this anymore." -- President Barack Obama

Of course, this raises the obvious question, why have we tolerated America's infamously non-existent gun restrictions to date? Interestingly, over the past two decades, as more gun crime occurs, our will to push for more regulation declines:

Yet Americans remain supportive when we seek specifics. Since 1993 all states are required to conduct background checks before people can be issued with a firearm, yet they seem to be a toothless tiger. When polled, 91% of Americans agreed that background checks should filter out both felons and the mentally ill, preventing them from personally owning a firearm. We know how many recent mass-murderers have been mentally unstable; you essentially must be to commit such an act.

Two reasonable questions:

1. Why do you want to purchase this firearm?
2. Are you able to hold unmitigated responsibility for your actions, both legally (age) and medically (mental health)?

Why do we refuse, as a nation, to force people to answer them?

 

[DeletedUser2259]

"We can't tolerate this anymore." -- President Barack Obama

Of course, this raises the obvious question, why have we tolerated America's infamously non-existent gun restrictions to date? Interestingly, over the past two decades, as more gun crime occurs, our will to push for more regulation declines:

Yet Americans remain supportive when we seek specifics. Since 1993 all states are required to conduct background checks before people can be issued with a firearm, yet they seem to be a toothless tiger. When polled, 91% of Americans agreed that background checks should filter out both felons and the mentally ill, preventing them from personally owning a firearm. We know how many recent mass-murderers have been mentally unstable; you essentially must be to commit such an act.

Two reasonable questions:

1. Why do you want to purchase this firearm?
2. Are you able to hold unmitigated responsibility for your actions, both legally (age) and medically (mental health)?

Why do we refuse, as a nation, to force people to answer them?

Kidding right????

Why do you want to purchase this firearm?... do you expect someone to say..."Well I was thinking of robbing a bank and then killing some people for starters...."????

Are you able to hold unmitigated responsibility for your actions, both legally(age) and medically (mental health)? Maybe someone might answer... "See I am crazy, I should be admitted,"...

Oh and PROFILING people on the spectrum is and should be illegal. Just as profiling anybody else.

John got killed because he was run over by a car..... It's the car's fault.

It is never that someone screwed up, that nobody gave a dam at home, at school, at work, the neighbors or society in general... No we are all exempt.
We see disturbed people (1 out of 44 now born on the spectrum) and we do nothing. We talk about socialized health care but we ignore autism and what video games are doing to our children especially those on the spetrum...
People who are mentally disturbed are often geniuses with extremely high IQ’s. A questioner won’t get them, not will the abolition of guns. Many people on the spectrum can build a bomb out of just about anything.
And the whole … “oh…automatic weapons… thing…”… That is a “howmany can he kill argument”… to the parents of those children the only number that matters is 1… Their child.

Would it matter to any of those parents if this disturbed person had killed with a knife and had only been able to kill 5 or 6 if it was one of theirs?
We are creating an environment where:
First our children are born more and more on the so called “spectrum” and it won’t be long before all are born that way.
Second we ignore the problem completely. We spend infinitely more time and money on lubricating gel than we do on autism research.
Third we ignore the fact that most of our media, nearly all of our entertainment, and most of our video games propone violence and to a brain that has difficulty understanding what is and is not appropriate that is very dangerous.
The idea that if we take guns away from people then people won’t kill with guns is just stupid. That is like saying if we make drugs illegal people won’t take them. If a person wants something bad enough they will always be able to get it no matter how many laws we make. In the end we make criminals out of regular people (much as we have done with marihuana) and the criminal element and the mentally disturbed continue to get whatever they seek.
Put criminals in jail and keep them there forever, treat people who are disturbed or need support as human beings with the same respect any human being deserves and do whatever it takes to protect them and society against their potential break down. That means school, educated parents, holding parents accountable, holding the government accountable for neglecting the largest epidemic mankind has ever faced, and society at large.
Do those 2 things and gun crimes will come down to negligible amounts.
Do those 2 things and most people would feel a lot more comfortable giving up their right to have arms sufficiently powerful so that if they do find themselves in a firefight with an assailant they stand a chance.

 

[DeletedUser34]

hmmm, might I point out that neither the batman shooting, nor the Gabby shooting were done by anyone on the Autistic Spectrum, so I think that in order to make your argument a bit more valid you should take it off the "spectrum" and put it on the question of Mental Disease and Disorder as a whole. Until you do, I don't think your argument is all that persuasive to contend the validity of the two questions Diggo has proposed.

 

[DeletedUser2259]

hmmm, might I point out that neither the batman shooting, nor the Gabby shooting were done by anyone on the Autistic Spectrum, so I think that in order to make your argument a bit more valid you should take it off the "spectrum" and put it on the question of Mental Disease and Disorder as a whole. Until you do, I don't think your argument is all that persuasive to contend the validity of the two questions Diggo has proposed.

Yes that is fair to say.
It's just that for example spectrum disorders are largely ignored and since I myself am very familiar with them they are the only kind I felt I was qualified to speak about.
I don't think anyone decides to kill a group a little kids because they are mentally stable. An instability that great cannot be stopped by laws.


It's just that well-meaningpeople tend to turn to the gun as the problem and ignore the real problem. There have been guns for a long long time, and in decades gone by these types ofo ccurrence were rare or nonexistent.

AK47s are very very old. They have not changed that much in the last 65 years what has is society.

 

[DeletedUser2711]

This is the only argument I can offer: http://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/07/27/exp-what-in-the-world.cnn

 

[DeletedUser34]

There have been guns for a long long time, and in decades gone by these types ofo ccurrence were rare or nonexistent.

And therein lies the problem as I see it. What has changed in decades?

This is the only argument I can offer: http://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/07/27/exp-what-in-the-world.cnn

Lanthano,
you have to at least paraphrase. It is a lamo way to debate. You can link your back up, but you at least have to put forth your point in your own words...where is the game in posting a link? I have been spanked for years on a wide variety of topics and I can't think I have ever just posted a link. I always get into trouble not in my back up, but in how I perceive and view my back up. Get with it bud

 

[DeletedUser2259]

This is the only argument I can offer: http://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/07/27/exp-what-in-the-world.cnn

Yes I have seen this argument before.
I could take ours of typing to point out all the very obvious flaws. For example we have more guns per person than IRAq... really... how many television broadcasts do you see of hundreds of Americans marching down the street with RPG's?
It depends on who and how you count. Numbers can be made to state anything.
If we had a bazillion cops and made sure that absolutely NO GUNS existed in the US then gun related deaths would drop to 0. True. Then deaths related to other means would climb because a person who is intent on killing 20 little children will go down to Wal-Mart, buy a few simple household items, strap a bomb to himself and do it that way.
For the record I don’t own a gun and never did, but I did get shot at trying to come here and become an American and I came because I didn’t want any of my freedoms taken away.

 

[DeletedUser2711]

That's why I won't put my spin on it, for or against. I have an opinion about guns, and gun control. I don't have facts. I have my own experience, but I don't know if it's typical or atypical. I do have a motto though: Err on the side of caution.

 

[DeletedUser2259]

I was not speaking of statistics on how many gun related deaths. I was speaking about the kinds of insane mass murders we have today that were much more rare in years gone by. I know I have been alive for many years I and I remember.

 

[DeletedUser34]

That's why I won't put my spin on it, for or against. I have an opinion about guns, and gun control. I don't have facts. I have my own experience, but I don't know if it's typical or atypical. I do have a motto though: Err on the side of caution.

What is the point of debate? or rather participating in a debate if you aren't going to state YOUR opinion? Is it your opinion or someone elses opinion? I will bounce around and play all sorts of angles, but if you don't give me something that is yours to work with, I gots nuthin!! Links are meant for back up as to proof in what YOU think....you know back up.

I was not speaking of statistics on how many gun related deaths. I was speaking about the kinds of insane mass murders we have today that were much more rare in years gone by. I know I have been alive for many years I and I remember.

and yet you didn't respond to but ONE mass murder. Explain to me please what the factors are that have changed that has caused more than one type of mass murder to become the norm? I think that is what Diggo is getting at. Why can't we ask these questions? But if you are going to say we can't, then I ask you based off of a comment you made, what is the factors or variables that have changed in the many decades you speak of?

 

[DeletedUser2711]

Yes, I see that it's called debate hall but I neither saw it as a formal debate nor did I intend to enter into one, formally. I guess that's why this is my first post in this category. I'll stay out of it. It's too emotionally charged an issue right now for me to approach logically.

 

[DeletedUser34]

Yes, I see that it's called debate hall but I neither saw it as a formal debate nor did I intend to enter into one, formally. I guess that's why this is my first post in this category. I'll stay out of it. It's too emotionally charged an issue right now for me to approach logically.

Time for Dom to be Dom

I have seen your link before. Matter of fact it was one of the things I saw that made me begin to question things. So, one of the main points in the beginning was that we had more guns in civilians hands. And as we have seen some of those guns are legally purchased by people who should not have them. Would not then if we were to ask the two questions that Diggo has put forth reduce the amount of guns that we have in civilian hands? Would it not also prevent those who shouldn't have guns from getting them legally? I am not saying about gang crime or gang related crime, as most of those guns are illegally obtained. But the mass murders have been not from sane people, but from those who shouldn't have had them in the first place, yes?

My next question is why are people so afraid to approach this topic? Why is limiting who can have a gun such a touchy situation?

My final point will be to Lanthano specifically.....As long as you keep it civil, nobody will hate on you (well nobody who matters) because you have a disenting or emotional opinion. For the love of Inno, I argued for months that Bush was right to start a war with Iraq....much to the hair pulling and frustration I gave the person(s) I was arguing against. I also, one of my more recent memorable Dom moments, argued extensively that volunteers are employees if paid with goods and services (A point I still THINK I AM RIGHT ON BY THE WAY!!!) again driving those I was arguing against absolutely crazy. And I spend the better part of hours arguing with echos of voices past about hot topic issues currently, and none of them hate me for my half cracked stands.

Just spit it out because I have pent up irritations and am just itching for some verbal sparring

 

[DeletedUser2711]

Oh trust me, being hated is not a worry of mine. It does not sway me one way or the other. But fine, if you would like to see my cards, I'll put them on the table.
In my opinion
1) As for the right to bear arms: There was an original need and reason why this was so important. And there is a current reason. They are not the same. They are very far apart. I do not want to see this right taken away completely, but I do want to see it restricted. Highly restricted.
2) I personally feel that there are only two legitimate reasons to own / possess arms. A) It is necessary for your profession, and B) for hunting... legal game. I do understand that the right to defend oneself should be a third reason. I consider that last one to be a privilege more than a right.

Every weapon was designed for a particular use. That is where our laws could do far more to restrict what weapons are legal in the US.

Now trust me, I'm a "prepper" at heart and I do not want to hinder anyone's ability to prepare for the maybe-not-so-distant-and-highly-probable future. I also would never bank money on there never being a Zombie Apocalypse. Should there ever be one, I have a plan and it involves very unconventional weapons.

Now the reason I posted the link was because I personally don't give a flying squirrel about opinions. I would love to see some facts. I don't know how much of the CNN report was factual. I did see holes. I wanted to see if anyone else could refute or confirm any of it. That was the first I had seen of it. I don't watch much TV.

As for the two questions? Yes, anything, something, just don't do nothing.

 

[DeletedUser]

Random opinions:

I've always thought we should have "ammo" control.
Everyone should have the right to owning a gun, but why do you need a personal stockpile of 100's of rounds of ammunition?

As for new laws, Background checks on people buying a gun should include some sort of check on who all will have easy access to that gun, and do checks on them too.

Plenty of great ideas that are too hard to implement.

I think a lot of the problems in the U.S. are from our dual-personality politics.
* Liberals keep crazy people from being locked away in mental institutions, and prevent censorship of violent media.
* Conservatives block gun control laws and promote gun manufacturer profit$

 

[DeletedUser]

In my opinion
1) As for the right to bear arms: There was an original need and reason why this was so important. And there is a current reason. They are not the same. They are very far apart. I do not want to see this right taken away completely, but I do want to see it restricted. Highly restricted.

I wondered who would bring up that old chesnut "the right to bear arms" and strangely it is from someone who holds a view I tend to agree with. The original has been redrafted several times and was more to do with having a militia for defence purposes. The trouble is the entire population seems to think it is the militia. I can hand you a magic marker to deal with offending amendment and you can all hand your weapons in and leave the law enforcers to deal with getting them off the criminal element. See, it's easy? But you love your guns don't you. Makes you feel special, powerful and free when you know you are not. In fact, you are less free than you ever were before.

Then there is the big business, the real money behind the sale of armaments. They are the puppeteers, they call the shots.

Nothing will ever change. We on the outside watch the arguments and know that this is so. You just don't have the will and cannot see your country without the shameless sexy gun adverts and the gun shops where you can caress your cold steel and marvel at the firepower. Given teh choice between holding a gun in your hand and the life of your child you would rather have the gun and blame anything but that.

 

[DeletedUser34]

I wondered who would bring up that old chesnut "the right to bear arms" and strangely it is from someone who holds a view I tend to agree with. The original has been redrafted several times and was more to do with having a militia for defence purposes. The trouble is the entire population seems to think it is the militia. I can hand you a magic marker to deal with offending amendment and you can all hand your weapons in and leave the law enforcers to deal with getting them off the criminal element. See, it's easy? But you love your guns don't you. Makes you feel special, powerful and free when you know you are not. In fact, you are less free than you ever were before.

Then there is the big business, the real money behind the sale of armaments. They are the puppeteers, they call the shots.

Nothing will ever change. We on the outside watch the arguments and know that this is so. You just don't have the will and cannot see your country without the shameless sexy gun adverts and the gun shops where you can caress your cold steel and marvel at the firepower. Given teh choice between holding a gun in your hand and the life of your child you would rather have the gun and blame anything but that.

I kinda have a problem with someone NOT from the USA, telling us what we need to strike from our constitution. And I don't agree it is big business, it is big PACs and big lobbies. And everyone is going off topic.....So if you are from the outside of the US, unless you have a valid option about a way to compromise our rights and our needs, I don't see how you can even argue the subject. The truth is Floydd has it right AND stayed true to the questions the OP was asking....

wish I could say the same about SLange who'd rather just sling mud about our ideology and our short comings rather than discuss civilly.

And also to point out Slange, the original was NOT redrafted. It says so in black and white, for a certain purpose, and it is NOT for militia. It has stayed the same through time, and stayed with the same purpose.

 

[DeletedUser]

Are you able to hold unmitigated responsibility for your actions, both legally(age) and medically (mental health)? Maybe someone might answer... "See I am crazy, I should be admitted,"...

Oh and PROFILING people on the spectrum is and should be illegal. Just as profiling anybody else.

John got killed because he was run over by a car..... It's the car's fault.

It is never that someone screwed up, that nobody gave a dam at home, at school, at work, the neighbors or society in general... No we are all exempt.
We see disturbed people (1 out of 44 now born on the spectrum) and we do nothing. We talk about socialized health care but we ignore autism and what video games are doing to our children especially those on the spetrum...
People who are mentally disturbed are often geniuses with extremely high IQ’s. A questioner won’t get them, not will the abolition of guns. Many people on the spectrum can build a bomb out of just about anything.
And the whole … “oh…automatic weapons… thing…”… That is a “howmany can he kill argument”… to the parents of those children the only number that matters is 1… Their child.

Hi Cavalier, don't you reckon three grieving parents are better than thirty grieving parents? What about parents who lose two or three children? Do you think the parents would be concerned if all of their childs' friends were shot dead? Do you honestly care about profiling, or are you really concerned about the "slippery slope" of gun restrictions once the second amendment is challenged?

Also, to be clear, my original questions are not to target any one group. They are designed to target everybody who, in a court of law, could not be found fully responsible for their actions. Usually that is children and those with severe mental conditions, either short term or permanently, however it could very well extend to others. You would also answer these questions throughout the course of the pre-existing mandatory background checks, not simply take someone's word for it over the counter.

 

[DeletedUser2711]

Here's the two questions I saw:

Why have we tolerated America's infamously non-existent gun restrictions to date?
Why do we refuse, as a nation, to force people to answer them?

That's what I addressed, other than that the other two questions should be asked, but that it can't stop there.

 

[DeletedUser2982]

Maybe its because of 12-21-12 they think the world is going to end or because it is a dog eat dog world those are hard questions to answer

 

[DeletedUser]

I kinda have a problem with someone NOT from the USA, telling us what we need to strike from our constitution. And I don't agree it is big business, it is big PACs and big lobbies. And everyone is going off topic.....So if you are from the outside of the US, unless you have a valid option about a way to compromise our rights and our needs, I don't see how you can even argue the subject. The truth is Floydd has it right AND stayed true to the questions the OP was asking....

wish I could say the same about SLange who'd rather just sling mud about our ideology and our short comings rather than discuss civilly.

And also to point out Slange, the original was NOT redrafted. It says so in black and white, for a certain purpose, and it is NOT for militia. It has stayed the same through time, and stayed with the same purpose.

I kinda have a problem with someone NOT from the USA, telling us what we need to strike from our constitution. And I don't agree it is big business, it is big PACs and big lobbies. And everyone is going off topic.....So if you are from the outside of the US, unless you have a valid option about a way to compromise our rights and our needs, I don't see how you can even argue the subject. The truth is Floydd has it right AND stayed true to the questions the OP was asking....

wish I could say the same about SLange who'd rather just sling mud about our ideology and our short comings rather than discuss civilly.

And also to point out Slange, the original was NOT redrafted. It says so in black and white, for a certain purpose, and it is NOT for militia. It has stayed the same through time, and stayed with the same purpose.

As a member of Amnesty International I have an interest in all matters concerning human rights and when those rights have been ignored or injured in whatever country. Any country dislikes Amnesty's interference in their own affairs so I understand your ly response. This is by way of an explanation of my personal interest in your gun laws which has resulted in multiple deaths of babies and the fact that our own media has been awash with reports of the tragedy and several American representatives have been interviewed on the matter of gun control here, as a result. I'm sorry that you find it offensive but it was certainly on topic. This kind of horror is internationally covered and we all have a view. It is inevitable that your country will be heavily criticised for allowing regular mass murders to take place by the reason of having weaponry readily available and the death of young children is very emotive for everyone. You are wrong about the second amendment btw.