Why can't they understand?

[Pete409]

In addition to the "crime" of possessing the wrong type of pictures, there are other "crimes" where people are punished not for what harm they have actually caused or what damage they have done to others, but what they MIGHT do.

A prime example of this is the "crime" of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content (BAC) greater than 0.08% (in most states). There have been MILLIONS of people who have operated vehicles while having a BAC greater than 0.08% and not caused any wrecks or accidents, yet they are presumed guilty because of what they MIGHT do.

 

[Guitargod1985]

Driving while intoxicated is a grossly negligent act and characterized by a complete disregard for others' well being.

When a person drives while intoxicated, he or she is willfully violating other drivers' safety (right to life).

Now in many jurisdictions, you can be given a DUI for simply having the keys in your ignition and listening to the radio while you are intoxicated. I don't believe this is a negligent act in the slightest, so this would qualify as something I would argue against. However, a judge would say that by placing the keys in the ignition a person has shown intent to drive or some such nonsense.

 

[trinydex]

dude, possessing a gun is not a LEAD TO CRIME act, as legal gun possession is used by all of us and is not inherent in the definition of "insane" or "mentally ill."

if the kid stabbed dogs, he should not get a gun. if he stabbed his sister in the eye, no gunz for him. if he robbed an old man without a gun, no gunz for him.

is this making sense yet? anything that HE'S DONE that aids in the ability to enact further violence WITH the use of firearms precludes him from the right to bear arms for the safety of the public.

 

[Pete409]

[

I]Driving while intoxicated is a grossly negligent act and characterized by a complete disregard for others' well being[/I].

That's the same way I look at the idea of letting some "crazy" guy own a gun until he has actually done someone harm with it.

If we are going to say that someone who possesses certain pictures MIGHT harm someone, and someone whose reactions/judgement are impaired by alcohol MIGHT cause an automobile accident, then it's reasonable to also conclude that someone who is not mentally stable MIGHT harm someone if allowed to own a gun. In each of these cases, it is SOCIETY in general that is being protected at the expense of personal liberty/freedom of some individual who MIGHT do someone some harm.

 

[trinydex]

it's not MIGHT HARM SOMEONE, it's HAS ALREADY HARMED SOMEONE or something.

partaking in child porn means some child was victimized.

stabbing a dog means the dog was harmed.

stabbing your sister means your sister was harmed. etc

 

[Tamlin]

I lean towards GuitarGod's thinking. Some poor slob is going to get divorced and have a mental meltdown. Happens every day. Do we want background checks to include psychological exams, too? I agree that Meltdown Bob may be LIKELY to commit gun violence at that particular moment in his life, but that moment will likely fade in a couple of days after he's drowned his sorrows and got a grip back on his life. Any type of government intervention is likely to bar Bob from purchasing guns for, say, five years. Unlike the ultra liberals, I believe people deserve the benefit of the doubt (liberals want big government because they don't trust the people to work things out for themselves). At this point Bob hasn't done anything. Can we keep him from buying guns? Not without severely infringing on his rights in the process. It's a give and take here. Yes, society would be "safer" if we could keep that .38 special out of Bob's hands during the week he really wants to kill his ex-wife, but then we might as well keep the guns out of everyone's hands, right? How many people obtain guns for such a purpose - either thinking they will kill an ex-spouse, or perhaps take their own life? By denying Bob his right to buy a gun, we are supporting the Brady Bunch's "waiting period" rationale. The few people who abuse their rights is not justification to infringe everyone else's rights. I say unless (1) the person has been declared mentally incompetent in a court, or (2) has committed a VIOLENT felony, we should not preclude them from their Second Amendment rights. Yes, the Innocent until Proven Guilty may wind up costing us a few lives, but it is the cost of protecting the greater right for everyone. P.S. - sorry for the long rant.

 

[packnrat]

better becarefull talking about anykind of mental problem,
as 99% of the pop can at any time have a "mental" problem, and now not be able to have a gun.






.

 

[The Tourist]

better becarefull talking about anykind of mental problem

The only thing that is really needed is a learned discussion of the facts. Imagine how fighting erroneous ideas can be.

After all, to most of the media you are, "a hopelessly inbred Gomer bent on shooting Bambi with a Dodge City mentality."

The harder you fight the idea with statistics or rage, the nuttier you look to the people trying to pigeon-hole you. You actually become that inbred Gomer when they reduce your rebuttal to a sound byte for the evening news.

Being a patient carries the same stigma. Most of society feels you will snap like a dry twig, despite the fact that typical Ward Cleaver husbands kill more wives than the patients ever will.

As I point out, ask a working LEO which call is more dangerous--a mentally ill patient crying outside a library, or a domestic dispute in a trailor park.

Sarcastically I point out that if people were serious about stopping violent crime they should simply outlaw trailor parks.

 

[sm]

Delete.

Some of us would rather discuss this thread topic, off public forum, sharing some real life experiences and observations we have.

 

[qajaq59]

Liberal and Logical are two totally different things. And they are never going to meet.

 

[Pete409]

SM,

No offense intended, but I have no clue what you're talking about. Your writing style or something about the way you say it just leaves me wondering what point you are trying to get across. You seem to jump from one unrelated subject to another. Maybe I'm just dense and maybe others understand you perfectly well, but I sure don't.

 

[sm]

Pete409,

No offense taken.
I have edited that post as I and some others would rather discuss the thread topic off public view anyway.

 

[The Tourist]

I and some others would rather discuss the thread topic off public view anyway.

At this point, I think that's a prudent idea.

Like many topics, this one really has only two sides. Either you're pro or anti. Kind of like issues of pregnancy. Either you is or you ain't. After all, the only middle ground I can see on this issue is to sell the mentally ill some guns, just not a whole lot of them.

I'm very pleased about the adult manner in which this thread has carried itself.