main
side
curve
  1. Welcome to the new boards! Details here!

Senate Gun Control

Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Dec 14, 2012.

  1. Jedi Merkurian

    Jedi Merkurian New Films Thread Reaper and Rumor Nay-Sayer star 7 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    May 25, 2000
  2. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Honestly, I do wish more states would treat paintball guns closer to real guns. In California, people have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon for stuff like this. They're not treated remotely seriously enough.
     
  3. Jedi Ben

    Jedi Ben Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Jul 19, 1999
    Guy over here is in a kebab shop, gets refused service as he's not masked, pulls a replica paintball gun, Police are called, he gets arrested, jailed for 20 months.

    Has been reported on now as the case concluded.
     
  4. Jedi Merkurian

    Jedi Merkurian New Films Thread Reaper and Rumor Nay-Sayer star 7 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    May 25, 2000
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2021
    Yodaminch, Ava G., Alpha-Red and 9 others like this.
  5. Mar17swgirl

    Mar17swgirl Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Dec 26, 2000
    Can states law override federal law?
     
  6. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Not really (though it usually involves bringing in the courts), but there's some element that federal laws are enforced by federal entities, and state laws enforced by state entities. So, for example, many areas already have said that their law enforcement won't enforce drug laws or immigration laws or the like.
     
    Juliet316 and Mar17swgirl like this.
  7. anakinfansince1983

    anakinfansince1983 Skywalker Saga/LFL/YJCC Manager Needs Wine star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Yodaminch and Ava G. like this.
  8. Jedi Merkurian

    Jedi Merkurian New Films Thread Reaper and Rumor Nay-Sayer star 7 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    May 25, 2000
    Rew, darthcaedus1138, Ava G. and 3 others like this.
  9. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    I mean, he was killed by like, 2nd or 3rd responders.

    And i find myself questioning things as they report the guy was holding the shooter's gun. Which sounds like either 1. the police shouldn't have been shooting him or 2. he picked up a rifle and aimed it at police. This wasn't like police showed up, saw two people shooting, and it got into that whole "which one of you is the evil one" "shoot both of us, it's the only way to be sure" sorts of cliches, they showed up after the first shooter had already been incapacitated. That, to me, raises major questions about why they shot someone and to what extent they're being truthful.

    It's not as though we don't have ample evidence already of police being trigger happy, especially when they think they're dealing with someone targeting cops (also see: Chris Dorner)
     
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  10. Jedi Knight Fett

    Jedi Knight Fett PT Interview & Teh Mole Host star 10 VIP - Game Host

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2014
    It’s almost like that was a really ****ing stupid response to why we should have so many guns.

    My sympathies to his family
     
  11. The Regular Mustache

    The Regular Mustache Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 22, 2015
    There’s a simple fix to this. Just change the phrase to, “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun but the good guy with a gun will also be stopped by another good guy with a gun and when I say stopped I mean killed”. Problem solved.
     
    Rew and Ava G. like this.
  12. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
  13. Alpha-Red

    Alpha-Red Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Well, if we had stricter gun laws, it's also less likely that the person who threatens your family will have a gun. Sure, they can threaten you with a knife, but it's much harder to kill a person with a knife.
     
  14. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Have strict gun laws. Have not been threatened with:

    * Knife
    * Gun
    * Spoon
    * Axe
    * Lawn-mower
    * Sword (all variants, i.e. including katana)
    * Morningstar (or any medieval melee weapons, for the avoidance of doubt)
    * A good time
    * Being punched

    So can confirm, do not wander around carrying an arsenal to ward off any of these things.
     
  15. Jedi Ben

    Jedi Ben Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Jul 19, 1999
    Also, Ender is posting from a land where everything does want to kill him.
     
  16. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Except the penguins. Mostly.
     
  17. QUIGONMIKE

    QUIGONMIKE Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Im fine with stricter gun laws as long as that still means that law abiding, deserving citizens can own them. Pretty sure I’ve stated that numerous times. I’ve said we can and should police the process better. Still seems that some of what people want is outright bans or extreme measures which don’t remove the guns from the bad guys. Too many of the current laws or proposals are just "feel good" policies that don’t do anything.

    Be nice to tackle the crime problem and things upfront in the chain too.
     
  18. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    And again "deserving" is a very subjective term and it seems to be very particular of who gets to determine 'deserving' when that gets used.
     
  19. QUIGONMIKE

    QUIGONMIKE Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Actually - it shouldnt be that hard: No criminal record, no outstanding warrants or required court appearances and not on any prescription medications that could compromise ones ability to reason(that one is tougher but Im sure there is some medical data that could help). Also can use a cool off period for any purchase. 48 hours? Maybe 72? Dunno exactly, but waiting a few days shouldnt be a big deal, IMO. Something like this is a good start to me.
     
  20. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Based off other posts, you use alcohol. You would agree then, that you should be banned from owning firearms because of the associations between alcohol use and gun violence, mean that it's just common sense to bar someone with a history of alcohol use, like yourself, from owning any firearms (or being in a household that does)?

    There's a stronger link between alcohol use and violence than there is between the sorts of prescription medications that come up as part of your demonization of mental illness. Not to mention that alcohol is clearly established to compromise one's ability to reason, so obviously if that's the bar being used, it shouldn't be legal for those who drink to own guns or vice versa. Just as a 'good start'. If nearly half of homicide offenders are under the influence of alcohol when they kill someone, that seems like a good starting point.

    In contrast, medications for mental illnesses reduce violence. The drop in homicides when people are getting proper treatment is indicating that your policy of making it so that the category of schitzophrenics that have guns are the category *not* being treated and are more than ten times likelier to kill people.

    Of course, the most relevant bit is that end bit... there's no evidence that drugs to treat mental illnesses, like antidepressants, increase violent behavior. So you don't mind saying that a group that you don't like is not "deserving" because of your own prejudices, to the extent that you advocate a policy that the more dangerous subset of a group should be able to own guns and the less dangerous subset of a group should not be able to own guns, but still thinking that you, personally are "deserving" of gun ownership despite your larger warning signs.

    In summation:
    Mental illness, broadly, is not linked to people posing a greater risk of violence. There are individuals that have red flags indicating they, in particular, may be a risk, but you have roundly rejected that level of nuance and stuck with broad strokes that are not substantiated by medical data.
     
    Rew, Sauntaero, CT-867-5309 and 3 others like this.
  21. QUIGONMIKE

    QUIGONMIKE Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 5, 2009
    @Lowbacca_1977 - Nah, cant get behind anything like that at all. Me enjoying alcohol responsibly has zero impact on my gun ownership rights or my behavior when using my firearms. Again we go back to: Do the right thing and act responsibly and everything tends to fall into place. I dont have all the answers on gun "stuff" but how would they even enforce this kind of thing? Come and check your fridge every so often to make sure gun owners dont have a six pack of beer in there? Be realistic. Thats never going to happen in any way, shape or form. Yeah - Im sure theres data to show that when drunk you are potentially more likely to be aggressive and/or violent. But is there hard data that drunk people are committing these mass shootings? Gimme a link if ya got one but I dont think thats the case. Domestic abuse, DWI, bar fights, etc arent gun violence. They are of course problems but this correlation trying to be made here cant stick.

    And no, I'm not buying into any of this me being a greater "risk" because I casually drink. Its clear that anyone who decides to shoot innocent people has a psychological problem of some kind. Maybe it wasnt diagnosed(it happens). Maybe it wasnt treated properly(also happens). But its hard to say that someone was completely normal right up until they commit mass murder.
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2021
  22. anakinfansince1983

    anakinfansince1983 Skywalker Saga/LFL/YJCC Manager Needs Wine star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Mar 4, 2011
    What are the uses of guns other than shooting people?

    Target shooting for sport is the only one I can think of.

    Domestic abuse and bar fights are gun violence when guns are involved. Show me a knife that can kill several people in fewer minutes, and put me in a situation where knives have no other uses such as cooking or whittling, and I will be a knife control advocate as well.
     
  23. Mar17swgirl

    Mar17swgirl Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Dec 26, 2000
    The only two legitimate reasons for a civilian to own a gun are hunting or sport shooting (in both cases a membership in a certified regulated organisation/club would be a prerequisite to obtaining the appropriate gun). A person who doesn't do either of these has precisely zero legitimate reasons to own a gun.

    Other than "But I waaaant it! I neeeeed it!", a 'reason' employed by toddlers and young children everywhere.
     
  24. Jedi Knight Fett

    Jedi Knight Fett PT Interview & Teh Mole Host star 10 VIP - Game Host

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2014
    Plus with that you wouldn’t need to own any gun like say an AR. As an AR doesn’t seem very good for hunting or sport shooting. Almost like it’s only conceivable use is for the killing of another human.
     
  25. blackmyron

    blackmyron Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Saying that good people should be able to get guns and bad people shouldn't is just an unhelpful oversimplification, not in any way a solution.
    And if you are against funding the government to be able regulate gun ownership, it just makes you a hypocrite.