Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Why can't they understand?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Eric F, Apr 18, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Eric F

    Eric F Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    2,934
    I saw a recent story on the news where a Va Tech student was going to protest guns. Ok fine and well but this is what he said,
    those were his words so he says he is protesting guns but he is actualy protesting gun purchasing policies. On top of that he aparently wants to make it ok for mentaly ill people to buy them. Do all of these people just not listen to themselves?
     
  2. Sato Ord

    Sato Ord Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2008
    Messages:
    657
    Location:
    Melbourne Florida
    Of course not, they find their schizophrenic tirades as confusing as the rest of us do, and they don't want to make their brains hurt trying to think anyway: they'd rather trust the thinking and their safety to their wonderful, protective government officials, who are professionals, and will even promise to tuck them in safely at night.

    The liberal nonsense about gun control is the only argument I can think of where they get what they want, it doesn't do any good, and they use that as "absolute proof" that we need more of it. :cuss:

    It's type of thinking that gets total bans in cities, and then is touted as a success even though the crime rate involving guns in those cities continues to rise. Then they respond to the rising crime rate by crying that we need more security, "Let's put in these cameras, no one will commit a crime on camera, right?:banghead:

    I'm sorry, I haven't had enough coffee to keep up with this discussion yet!:confused:
     
  3. Pete409

    Pete409 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Messages:
    777
    Location:
    Florida
    My guess is that he did not clearly state what he was thinking. He probably meant that he wanted to close the loophole which allowed mentally ill people to purchase guns. Of course, this point is debatable since "mental illness" is not clearly defined as to what constitutes mental illness.
     
  4. gunNoob

    gunNoob Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    488
    How do you know if someone is mentally ill until they do something crazy? hmmmm?
     
  5. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    23,908
    Location:
    Arizona
    These are individuals that usually were brought up in an environment where there were no firearms, and often guns were despised and feared. Now their worst fears have been realized and perhaps even someone they know was a victim. They cannot come to grips with the fact that their warm, secure and fuzzy world has evaporated and the a sign at the front gate saying “Gun Free Zone – No Firearms Allowed” didn’t protect them in the least.

    So they blame guns – and they’re supposed easy availability. “If,” they think,” we could just "close the loopholes" and get rid of those awful guns, everyone would be nice and friendly, and I could have my warm and fuzzy world back again.” Now this is naive and child-like, but frankly you are dealing with people that meet that description.

    They also believe that laws really work, and that they are the solution for any threat to their little perfect world. The idea that human behavior – especially criminal behavior – can’t be controlled through statutes and regulations, are way beyond any concept they understand. We know that this approach isn’t much more effective then the Gun Free Zone sign. They refuse to believe it.

    It is far easier to understand where such people are coming from, then it is to get them to change directions, because their feelings and fears toward guns is entirely driven by emotions rather the logic.
     
  6. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,696
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    We need to take this one step at a time. Let's make it impossible for mentally ill people to get cocaine and heroin first...
     
  7. The Tourist

    The Tourist member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,669
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    I have never understood the overall mindset of a leftie.

    When I get up in the morning, I make a good strong latte' to go with my newspaper and then I feed the dogs.

    It seems when Hillbama gets up they think about new and varied ways to disenfranchise citizens from their enumerated rights.

    There's an old Sicilian adage about a devout preist who tossed and turned all night because he knew someone was out there someplace committing some type of sin.

    And BTW for all of you hypocrites, I run Stage II pipes.
     
  8. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    I'll simplify it for you: only crazy people want guns.
     
  9. The Tourist

    The Tourist member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,669
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Oy. Your assumption is that "craziness" can be assessed by howling at the moon or chewing a rug.

    As you know, I'm OCD and bipolar.

    My acts of "craziness" were excessive vacuuming, continually polishing my bike and taking naps.

    And all of these are legal acts.
     
  10. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,696
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    And that means that cops are "crazy", but those are the only people they want to have guns, and...
     
  11. Werewolf

    Werewolf Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,192
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Where on Earth did you acquire the notion that cops want guns? :confused:
     
  12. ChopperKen

    ChopperKen Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2003
    Messages:
    262
    Location:
    Mid Michigan
    They don't wan't to understand, They are right and that is that!
    The Tourist, I run 2" open drags,
    By the way what ya doing this weekend? my bike could use some OCD like yours,It hasn't been polished since last fall.:D
     
  13. Samuel Adams

    Samuel Adams Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    548
    Location:
    Coastal Georgia
  14. XLMiguel

    XLMiguel Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,551
    Location:
    Santa Fe, NM
    Basic problem is personal privacy (i.e. medical records), vs public safety (i.e. background checks for buying guns). Can't have it both ways if you want the mentally unfit kept out or included in NCIC.

    Use case: What if you were depressed after a nasty divorce 10 yrs ago, sought help, moved on, and are now a happy camper?

    No easy answers. I favor dealilng with those whose behaviour indicates a problem (history of bad behaviour, or current experience), not "what if" (prior restraint), but I haven't been elected King of the World yet . . .
     
  15. Pete409

    Pete409 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Messages:
    777
    Location:
    Florida
    I think that sums up the problem pretty well. A reasonable and fair solution is considerably harder to determine.

    As far as gun laws are concerned, I think that the mental health "experts" need to come up with some criteria for determining what sort of mental or emotional problems would make a person unfit (i.e. unsafe) to own firearms. I think that these determinations should be periodically subject to review and renewal (perhaps every 5 years). That way, if a person had a problem 5 or more years ago, but has since worked it out, then their right to own a gun could be restored.

    I realize that this would not be an easy task, but that is no reason not to TRY to tackle the issue. Otherwise, the law is likely to go to one extreme or the other with regard to mental problems and neither extreme presents a fair or safe solution for all involved.
     
  16. Guitargod1985

    Guitargod1985 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,322
    Location:
    Florida
    Here's an idea: How about until the person is actually convicted of a crime, we assume that person is a decent human being capable of exercising his or her rights in a responsible fashion. I know it's a crazy idea, the presumption of innocence and all, but I can't help feeling there's something in the law about it. Oh yeah, the Fifth Amendment.

    The fact is that you cannot know for certain what any person will do unless (a) they've already done it, or (b) you are omnipotent. Since option (b) seems pretty far fetched to most of us (unless you happen to be a "doctor" of psychiatry), we must allow people the benefit of the doubt until they act in a manner which warrants forfeiture of said rights.
     
  17. bogie

    bogie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,569
    Location:
    St. Louis, in the Don't Show Me state
    Now, this may be a stretch, but I'm thinking that one of the reasons more than a few of today's youth can't get their heads around logic is that they have never learned to communicate in a structured fashion. It is "okay" for them to write something which is essentially random thoughts, and then require the reader to figure it out.
     
  18. stephpd

    stephpd Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2007
    Messages:
    107
    Location:
    Wilmington, DE
    mental illness

    Head shrinker's think everyone is crazy, it's all a matter of degree. It not who is crazy but who is dangerous. That's why felons can't buy guns legally. Nobody should be denied the right to self defense until they DO something that harms others. Even drunk drivers can get their license back if it's even revoked. Cars kill many more folks then legally owned guns. Maybe drunk drivers should never be able to get or keep a license after one DUI. Would make the world a lot safer then worrying about crazy people with guns.
     
  19. Guitargod1985

    Guitargod1985 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,322
    Location:
    Florida
    bogie, that is by no means a stretch. Here in Florida, for example, we have a standardized test known as the FCAT, which all public school students must pass in order to graduate from high school. The FCAT is essentially a dumbed-down sixth grade level reading/writing exam. Many of the students in public school are instructed in FCAT test taking skills, while other more significant areas of study are neglected. I suspect the case in many other states is similar.
     
  20. Wayne G.

    Wayne G. Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    385
    Location:
    USA
    ...including howling at the moon and/or chewing a rug.

    :)

    Going back to the mindset of the fellow who is "protesting guns" because he doesn't want the mentally ill to have them. Well, what about cars? They are far more deadly in the hands of the "mentally ill" bent on destruction and mayhem. Why not protest the "vehicle loophole"?

    Do you really think this has anything to do with the mentally ill or the protection of society? No, there is an agenda here that is being pushed under false pretenses, and people are buying it hook, line, and sinker.
     
  21. Pete409

    Pete409 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Messages:
    777
    Location:
    Florida
    So if several mental health experts agree that a person is very unstable mentally and has a pre-disposition to violent acts; and further they agree that the person is dilusional and often can't distinguish right from wrong, you would have no problem with this person owning an arsenal until he actually goes on a killing spree and kills a dozen or so people???? :rolleyes:

    Sorry, but I don't agree with that.
     
  22. Werewolf

    Werewolf Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,192
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Sorry - but freedom isn't free. With it comes risk. Eliminate risk and eliminate freedom.

    Punish acts not a presumption that one may act.

    Example:
    Based on your response you seem to me to be an authoritarian statist. You may just try to become dictator of the US. I propose we toss you into the clink, chain you to a wall and do electro-shock every day, twice a day to preclude any chance that you may try to become dictator.

    Sounds pretty silly doesn't it? No sillier than what you proposed though.
     
  23. Pete409

    Pete409 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Messages:
    777
    Location:
    Florida
    By that, I conclude that you believe that those people who are tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison for having child pornography on their computers or in books/magazines/etc in their home should never have even been subject to trial at all. Better to wait until they actually molest some children, right?
     
  24. Werewolf

    Werewolf Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,192
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Very ill thought out and poor reasoning skills exhibeted by that logic.

    A person who has child pornography in his posession has subourned either directly or indirectly child molestation. Without the demand for it there would not be those willing to risk supplying it. Thus children would not be used to produce it.

    Posessing child porn aids and abets criminal acts which is way different from some shrinks getting to decide that you or I are a danger to ourselves or society based upon some nebulous psycho-babble.
     
  25. t3rmin

    t3rmin Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Messages:
    84
    Not to mention the possibility of misuse. Proponents of restricting folks based on what they MIGHT do often seem to assume these powers will always be used in the most altruistic ways.

    Don't make enemies of any shrinks, since they may soon have the power to take away your rights. Or don't make enemies with anyone who has sway over the shrinks. It's quite easy to have a kangaroo court and declare somebody incompetent when you have these subjective standards.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page