Some People Shouldn't Have Guns?

[Mike1234567]

yer ALL krayzee... sind mee awl yer gunz cuz I NOT krayzee... if yoo duzint sind mee yer gunz i KEEL yoo!! i KEEL you reel bad thin i hert yoo REEL bad!! butt I dont need no steenkeen hi-pointsez!!

 

[ballisticsoup]

I feel that my last post needs some clarification, I work in the transit industry specializing in special needs transportation mostly elderly and mentally/physically handicapped.
Some of the people I transport don't drive because they are physically incapable ,some because they can't be trusted to drive, some because they have seizures but are otherwise normal.
Clients with severe autism get easily stressed and sometimes violent due to the noise of other passengers, they aren't bad people but I wouldn't trust them with a butter knife much less a glock.
Another example would be one of my coworkers he has Aspergers syndrome he is a normal,intelligent well adjusted guy who doesn't talk much is very awkward but he is trusted to drive a bus. A vehicle capable of being far more dangerous than any handgun even though he has what is technically a disability.

Long story short IMHO weapon ownership is a civil right that should only be denied with very specific,well defined dis-qualifiers that are open to review and capable of being appealed in case of misdiagnosis and recovered brain injuries. Just my opinion.

 

[Firemedic56]

Personally, I do think some people shouldn't have guns. Just like some people shouldnt drive or use power tools or various other things...

The problem is people rarely have the maturity or responsibility to either not buy a gun or get more training. It may be a right to keep and bear arms but some forget the responsibility that goes hand in hand with carrying a weapon capable of ending a life or of ending the life of a bystander with bad tactics and piss poor training.

However, I think it should be a persons individual reaponsiblity to decide if they shouldn't be armed or if they need more training not anyone else's...

 

[Maple_City_Woodsman]

Those who are emotionally unstable, but not legally defective, usually don't want a gun anyway or are afraid of them.

 

[hipoint]

It's a hard choice and one that I feel I am not capable of making. Some are totally evident, others are a little less so. I don't feel that I have the right to tell someone that they can't own some machine, likewise I don't feel like anyone else has the right to tell me that. I do see a need for it, but making the call... meh... I just don't feel like anyone has the right to pass judgement on anyone else.

After all, it is EASY to get a gun. In my state you can legally buy guns at the flea market, no background check or anything, hand them the money and walk away with it. Handguns are supposed to be regulated and while they don't sell those at the flea market, internet forums are full of them. usually folks want you to sign a bill of sale, but that's about as far as I've ever had to go with a private sale. So getting the guns is not an issue... It's actually only an issue for people who are wanting to do it legally and legitimately, so our laws the way they are now are only prohibiting people from buying guns who are trying to buy them responsibly, so it seems the law is self defeating. If you don't care where it comes from and are doing a shady deal, they are super easy to get, if you want to be a good citizen and buy it and register it you can get denied for any stupid reason (check n.c. handgun laws).

 

[Sky]

Mental Health"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never cease to be amazed at the faith placed in a "discipline" that engages in science-by-consensus -- literally a voting process -- to enumerate the maladies it deigns to treat.

The "discipline" in question has never been validated, has never been able to produce consistent results, has actively participated in shaping our education system, and is richly funded from government sources. Their validity is predicated on subjective criteria evaluated by none other than themselves.

And yet, with no actual evidence that they have any real insight into the subject at hand, beyond the kind of understandings long guarded as trade secrets by fortune tellers and con men, they hold themselves up as the standard for "who knows best what's going on in your head."

And unto this body we, as a culture, seem to be calmly accepting of their authority to pronounce us fit or unfit for this or that endeavor based solely on their subjective opinion and interpretation of a list of maladies on which their colleagues have voted.

Really?

You want to hang your rights on that authority?

Well, of course. After all, you need only look upon the crown jewel of their last four decades of industry: the state of the public school system and the products issuing therefrom. They clearly have fecal aggregation mastered.

Any fool can see that.

I actually started and owned a company where I hired and placed PHDs (Clinical Psychologist) and LMSW ACP Licensed Mastered Social Workers Advance Clinical Practitioners into nursing homes for evaluations and therapy of the residents. Everything from new arrival evals to problem folks. Private offices for marriage counseling and evaluations of problem children.

This service was needed because according to the government 80% of all nursing home residents suffer from some form of depression or mental illness.

What a crock! Poor people being recommended for therapy for no other reason than sucking money out of the system or just to have a friend/someone who acted like they cared to talk to. Not in every case but much to general to be ignored or an aberration.

Same could be said about the population in general IMO if interviewed on a particular day.

Psycho is the root of Psychologist for a reason. Many went into that profession to heal themselves and at one time they had the highest incidence "statistically" of suicide in the nation for professionals.

Not saying all are Psycho or one step away from a gun to the head but as quoted above there are reasons for many things and follow the money is usually at the root or because of a desired socially acceptable form of behavior. Many would do much better to have friends they can talk to ( isolation can be a root cause along with hormone imbalance in many instances) other than paying someone to listen to their perceived injustices or why the world is/was so mean to them and why they are soooooooo unhappy IMO.

NOW: Clinical depression is a real; and can be treated by meds until the body and med combo stops working, then a med change is required. We had people who after several years had to use a portion ( call it a cocktail) from different manufactures to have the desired results yet eventually the cocktail still did not work that well after a time either. Different levels of Clinical Depression but all can be bad and something you would not wish on anyone. Just my experience and observations.

 

[JustinJ]

Sky:

Psycho is the root of Psychologist for a reason.

Ummm, yeah, but nothing to do with the reason you imply. Psychology is latin for "Study of psyche". A psychologist is one who practices psychology.

The constition allows for a person's second amendment right, and other consitutional rights, to be infringed upon if done so by due process as stated in the fifth amendment.

hipoint:

so our laws the way they are now are only prohibiting people from buying guns who are trying to buy them responsibly,

Are you saying that private sales are irresponsible?

 

[Sky]

Ummm, yeah, but nothing to do with the reason you imply. Psychology is latin for "Study of psyche". A psychologist is one who practices psychology.

Correct; language has changed along with accepted meanings of given words. History of words are one thing and their use and meaning maybe something else entirely today in some circles or countries. That was actually a quote from the head Psychologist that worked for me. He liked to get an evil look on his face and eyes when explaining the problems of dealing with a problem child Psychologist or LMSW ACP. He was a hoot and a valuable asset who could speak "psychoese" in his words, to address interoffice and field problems. Good company which I sold to my secretary.

 

[timhernandez]

I believe that neither the Government, nor my fellow man, have the ability to decide in what manner I choose to defend myself, my home, and my family. I am the only person that can make that decision. Were I to have my druthers, I would have a set of Phalanx CIWS turrets mounted on my house, one in my truck, and the War Machine armor sets for each of my kids....

When we allow others to dictate our base biological need to protect ourselves, we become less as humans.

If someone chooses to forebear owning a weapon for protection, that is their choice, and is something they will live with.

Me, I'm looking on gunbroker for a Navy Surplus sale ;-)

 

[oneounceload]

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

And some sex offenders are allowed to walk among the children, even though they MAY still pose a threat - maybe they will backslide and maybe they won't - the analogy is still the same.....there are some folks who are legally allowed to be in public who should NOT be allowed near ANY type of weapon, guns notwithstanding - just the way it is.

For those here who like to "suppose" about those 1 in 10 million possibilities of something happening to justify carrying somewhere, what would you do with these folks who are on the street?

 

[mgregg85]

Ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? A huge principle of our justice system...

I really like the whole "freedom isn't free" idea... It applies here, living in a free society isn't free, even if you aren't a soldier. As a civilian you must accept the risk of living in this free society. People are trusted with certain rights until they prove that they aren't deserving of those rights and this can be a dangerous situation. There are plenty of people out there who shouldn't have guns I'm sure, just as there are many out there who shouldn't be driving or shouldn't be allowed to drink alcohol. Just like you and me, they will retain the right to keep and bear arms until they prove themselves unfit. If you are uncomfortable with that risk then I would suggest you move on over to a country where the citizens aren't trusted with such dangerous freedoms like England or France or California.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

There are police officers that shouldn't have guns; an example would be that fella from Canton, Ohio Police.

 

[Sky]

Ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? A huge principle of our justice system...

Amazing how many people either forget or believe that does not apply to their fellow citizen.

 

[Lubricant]

So,Here it is,5:20 a.m.Just came up from the basement after squeezing out the last of 300 rounds of 45.a.c.p.This crazy boy is going to the range today.Gonna come back grimy with gun schmutz,wet from the rain,and a smile on my face[I am an optimist]Just thought I'd let the" PRO"side know of My itenerary.Just in case,ya know.Also,to whomever thinks this is a viable answer to an entirely too complex problem,I've got to ask.How do you know this filthy monster is'nt creeping up on you?You won't know it's coming,Does'nt make any noise,and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it even if you did.Also looking forward to the detail strip of the 1911 later on this evening,so maybe I am a little nuts!

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

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

If that isn't tyranny, I don't know what is. Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[we are not amused]

Peadalbiker of Post#5, mgmorden of #12, and ArfinGreebly of #24, have the correct point of view if we live in a free society.

Arguably, we don't, but shouldn't we try to make it one?

What is it about freedom that frightens so many people?

In my opinion, the only people who shouldn't own/possess a weapon, are those who are determined to be too dangerous to be let free.

In other words, if you are not in prison or a mental institution, you should have the right to be armed.

 

[WinThePennant]

What this thread shows you is that even in the gun owning community there are half-wits who'd deprive other people of their liberties based on baseless perception, calculation, and a good mix of fear.

 

[Panzercat]

Who and by what criteria decides who can and can not own firearms?

There is the crux of the matter.

This. In theory some people just shouldn't be handling a firearm period, but who do you really trust to make that decision?

Also, as another mentioned, there's no difference between "barring certain people from owning guns" and "everyone who legally can", the latter implying that there are those who legally can't, which is the first choice. In fact, all these questions are the same: Somebody is legally prohibited from owning a firearm.

 

[oldfool]

well yeah, there are a LOT of people who really shouldn't own guns
just like a LOT of people who really shouldn't drive cars
except me, of course

but mostly.. "there oughta' NOT be a law"
I didn't vote the poll either, but I will vote with Arfin post #24

PS
it's like they say, you know, re: trust...
"I don't trust anybody, except me and you, and I ain't all that sure about me !"

 

[we are not amused]

What this thread shows you is that even in the gun owning community there are half-wits who'd deprive other people of their liberties based on baseless perception, calculation, and a good mix of fear.

I agree!

 

[Nushif]

If you are free tomove around in society you should be free to partake in all its rights as well as you are obliged to do all your duties, of which there are very few.

 

[Bobson]

Even aside from the fact that the poll questions have very poor wording (and there's no real difference between options two and three), there isn't much logic behind this question. You can't answer the question without assuming a variety of things; and depending on what a person actually believes, those questions are going to mean different things.

Also:

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.

And this really isn't realistic. It's ideal, and it should be the way things are done, but it doesn't work. This is diving headfirst into a huge amount of debate about the nature of corrections as a whole, and it really requires a lot of education specifically into our criminal justice system's history (not that you don't know it - I just don't want to assume anything), not to mention ethics, what the goal of our justice system should be versus what the goals used to be and why they changed (rehabilitation, vs punishment, vs reintegration, vs removal from society/storage), etc, etc. I could submit a 100-page thesis on the subject, but I can't debate it here.

The bottom line is this: We're forced to allow certain people to walk semi-free, when they shouldn't be free at all, simply because this country has way too many screwed up freaks, and yet, our intelligent, modern society doesn't want to kill off all the lost causes. This is the only option we have, and Americans don't want that blood on their hands; so this is what we're left with.

Why can't we just lock them up? Because there isn't enough room. There isn't enough money. Housing (and feeding, educating, etc) America's most worthless people costs taxpayers billions of dollars per year, and America's prisons are literally bursting at the seems.

 

[P5 Guy]

If one can't be trusted to comport oneself in society why is the one out and about with the moral agents of society?

 

[oldfool]

Well. the way I see it freedom comes only with risk, in equal parts, always,
and there is no such thing as freedom that is not willingly shared with all others
That would be privilege, not freedom

If they are behind prison bars, for reasons fair or foul, they don't get a gun. Locked in behind bars in a mental ward, same thing. Otherwise, they be as free as me, or ought to be.
Any well ordered and lawful society requires laws, even though' legal' and 'just' were never one and the same, the goal ought to be to work towards that.

Laws only work when based on what the overwhelming majority would already be doing if the law did not exist at all. They are needed for the exceptions to the rule amongst all of us who choose to live with the herd.

so.. mostly, there "oughta' NOT be a law"
but there need be some
The 2nd Amendment is about as much gun law as I really really need in my life
My neighbors will pretty much see to the rest if/when I stray too far out of line.

 

[baylorattorney]

The only people who shouldn't have guns are those who have the intent to harm themselves or innocent others and or those who lack the personal responsibility gun ownership requires and who might negligently harm themselves or others thereby.