Some People Shouldn't Have Guns?

Should certain people not be allowed to have guns?

  • Yes, certain people should be barred from owning guns, even if they're not legally prohibited.

    Votes: 38 20.8%

  • No, everyone who legally can should be allowed to own a gun.

    Votes: 99 54.1%

  • Only legally prohibited people should not own guns.

    Votes: 46 25.1%
  • Total voters
    183
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
jahwarrior

jahwarrior

Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
1,146
Location
Dickson City, PA
the other day, on another forum, i read a post by someone that said, "maybe the anti gunners are God's way of keeping guns out of some people's hands". he was reffering to people he thought shouldn't be allowed to have guns, like people with short tempers, or people with depression. not people who are prohibited by law, just folks that made him uncomfortable with a gun. thoughts?
 
I didn't vote, the questions are biased. I think even current laws go too far.

Biking around on our roads without the steel armor gives me a bit of a different perspective on things. An automobile is the most dangerous weapon I see on a regular basis. I know there are guns floating around out there, but I hardly ever see them except when hunting or at the range. Every single day hundreds of people drive past me armed with a deadly weapon. I'm still alive and well. What does that tell you? Many of these folks are depressed, many are angry some hate bicyclists with a passion.

The warped concept that a felony of any nature should prohibit one from owning a gun is a paranoid delusion.

Just recently the courts let a guy who shot kids outside a school go free on all counts but one. They convicted him of "having a weapon on school grounds". Apparently they can forgive him for shooting our children, but they can't forgive him for taking a gun onto school grounds. What message does that send? Some people shouldn't be judges? Some people shouldn't vote?
 
i didnt vote

I dont believe "laws" shouldn't have anything to do with gun ownership. it IMO is a fundamental right you are born with and should not be allowed to be taken away,regardless of personality ,handicap or even crime.
 
I met a gun shop owner that's as crazy as a loon. He shouldn't be allowed to have any, but he was surrounded by them. Seriously, the guy was a total wacko. I know of another one that's a total criminal, he should just be in prison.

So IMO, the mentally ill and criminals shouldn't have guns.
 
Obviously, those medically diagnosed with a mental illness.
Now the next subject could be touchy-a perfectly able person who is diagnosed with early stage dementia. This condition will progress. I would hope that that person if a gun owner will consider legally turning over their guns to their siblings/family members considering the mental impairement that person faces.
I would say that full mental capacity and awareness is critical with gun ownership. Temperment, mood, personality are other things altogether.
 
Personally, IMHO if you're mentally imbalanced enough to not be safe with a gun, then you're not safe enough to walk free.

Same with felons who have done their time in prison. They're either rehabilitated and safe to let out (with a return of ALL their freedoms), or they still need to be locked up.

Naturally I don't think that people legally being detained as criminals or mental patients should have access, but everyone who is otherwise free to move about in open society should be able to buy a gun if they want one.
 
If all the rest of us are armed it keeps the crazies in check. Just think of all the times that SHTF (Luby's Cafe, Virginia tech, etc.) and no one but the crazy had a weapon.

Rondog- No, I don't really want total nutters to have guns, but proving sanity is at least as hard as diagnosing INsanity. Look at the morons we have running the country.
 
1) Those who want the rest of us to be disarmed should voluntarily forbear being armed.

2) Those who want the rest of us to be disarmed should voluntarily forbear the protection of armed guards.
 
mg many people with mental illness walk free because they are on multiple medications. Still, their condition, even if stabilized prohibits firearm ownership.
Click to expand...

You're stating how things ARE though. I'm stating how I think things SHOULD BE. If they are are stabilized enough on meds to be walking free then I see no reason why that shouldn't also extend to firearms ownership. I know that's not the way it currently works, but there's a lot about the current system we don't like.

The pro-gun argument has always been that those that mean to do harm to others will always do so. If you took all the guns away they'd use knives, or clubs, or bare hands, but realistically there's no way to take all the guns away (ie, you can't put the genie back in the bottle).

Following that logic, a dangerous person is dangerous regardless, or they're either safe enough to let out and enjoy all the freedom that entails (guns included), or they need to be locked up.
 
In an ideal world, I would be the only person allowed to have guns.:) (The theory being that it's a zero-sum game, and my strength is increased by the other guy's weakness.)

The problem with this is that a lot of people might feel exactly the same way. Plus, there are too many practical difficulties in enforcing prohibitions and restrictions. The horse has already fled the barn, so to speak, when it comes to guns. The best we can hope for, then, is a level playing field where practically everyone has access to guns. One crazy armed person would be quickly overpowered by 10 sane armed people surrounding him. (As an example, disarming airline passengers is the wrong approach. Instead, we should be issuing guns to all the airline passengers as they board the plane. See how far a hijacking goes under those circumstances.)
 
"Obviously, those medically diagnosed with a mental illness."

What is obvious? Google the DSM-IV, the book of psychiatric diagnoses. I think you will be shocked by the hundreds of diagnoses you will find, the majority of them having nothing to do with hallucinations, delusions, or psychosis in general. How about learning disabilities for one? Hmm?

"I would hope that that person if a gun owner will consider legally turning over their guns to their siblings/family members considering the mental impairement that person faces."

That they face? No sir, I will not accept that proposal. It could be many years before the person loses their ability to functional normally. They might forget some things, but still drive safely, work and even continue to run a business.

"Temperment, mood, personality are other things altogether."

You really need to look at the DSM-IV. Those three things you listed are NOT other things altogether as you put it. They comprise a large number of psychicatric diagnoses - see the chapters on mood disorders, personality disorders, etc. And you want to ban firearm ownership because of all of them?

If there are restrictions they need to be imposed because of behavior, not a one-line code and diagnosis in a medical report.

John
 
Well perhaps we should create a Democracy in which your several closest neighbors, friends, family, and co-workers all get to vote on whether they think you are stable enought ot own a gun...yeah that would be just great.:uhoh:
 
Prohibit?

Wait, this whole theme sounds so familiar . . .

Can we, for a change, just ban felons? And maybe dangerous raving lunatics?

Gawd.

Why is it, even today, that we are still worrying about what free men may own?

Is the man free or is he a felon? If he's a felon, why is he free?

Oh, you don't trust him? And yet you let him roam free among the general population? Seriously?

Make up your mind. Lock him up as a felon, or let him go. Really let him go. All the way.

Same with the loony dude. If he's really that dangerous, sequester him. Else leave him the hell alone.

 
I'm all for freedom too, but...
Click to expand...
Yeah.

You know this argument Ron. Who gets to decide who is crazy? What is crazy? Etc. It's one thing to have someone clinically evaluated for an illness. And it's a very different thing to witness irregular behavior and label them mentally disturbed. I misjudge and prejudge people all the time. Especially when I have just a momentary impression of someone who does not conduct themselves according to my biased view of propriety. I quickly judge them per that isolated moment of contact; usually negatively. I have to believe that many people along the way have looked at something I was doing/saying and thought, "That guy's nuts". I really don't think I am though. Many antis would just look at my gun collection and declare me disturbed, I'm sure.

Any chance that you don't really know the guy personally since you state that you 'met the guy'?

This guy obviously deals with the ATF on a fairly regular basis. If he's still in business, they are obviously okay with him.

Maybe prohibition should ONLY come after someone does something bad enough to necessitate it? Whad'ya think?

Drive down the highway long enough, you'll inevitably say something like, "People like that shouldn't be allowed to drive!"

Drive down the highway long enough, you'll inevitably do something that will cause the drivers around you to say, "People like that shouldn't be allowed to drive!"
...if you're .. not .. safe with a gun, then you're not safe enough to walk free.
Click to expand...
I do not disagree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Those who want to own guns should join the military. Civilians shouldn't own guns.
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
Torque
T
U
  • Locked
Shouldn't Jesse Jackson Jr. have his gun rights revoked by Illinois police?
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Neo-Luddite
Neo-Luddite
C
  • Locked
Aren't gun owners people too?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
Sam1911
S
45223
  • Locked
What do people mean by mental illness?
2 3 4 5
Replies
104
Views
7K
Cee Zee
C
Z
  • Locked
Some people shouldn't own guns
Replies
3
Views
558
ZMP_CTR
Z
Back
Top