The only true deadly weapon is the human mind, the mind turns a common tool into a weapon.
DukieDog said:Yea, lets write down more words on paper and maybe we'll finally use enough sheets that if every student has a copy of the laws, they can use it as a shield until the shooter kicks it out of their hands and places one in the middle of their forehead.
BRILLIANT!
The very first people that should be in the NICS database are the mentally defective people who think that somehow words written on paper is going to suddenly make bad people think differently.
ClosetCaseNerd said:Okay, I'm willing to take the flames.
Are you suggesting we leave the legal loophole unclosed that allowed a court-deemed mentally ill person to obtain firearms?
Psychiatry is as much an art as a science, and he just HAPPENED to be deemed a hazard to himself, but not others (in the later case he would not of been able to obtain a firearm). But with this new legislation, constructed with help from the NRA, you are never permanently barred from firearm ownership. You can repeal your case at a later date, and prove your recovery in the same manner that was deemed you were unhealthy (doctors signature).
Does someone have a better idea?
Its a difficult issue.
DukieDog said:Yup, there is a better idea.
Go back to the ORIGINAL law. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Then, let the violent criminals meet the determined citizens and after a few instances where the criminal is blown to his creator, the problem will pretty much be self correcting.
Regardless that the shooter should not have been able to buy the guns. There is no evidence that this would have stopped him. Youthful gang bangers can get guns illegally easily enough. A determined person would figure out a way.
Every survey of criminals has resulted in the same conclusion. The ONLY thing that a criminal fears is an armed victim. PERIOD.
The argument that granting everyone with the ability to have guns would only lead to more crime is complete nonsense. There doesn't exist a single shred of evidence to support such a theory. On the other hand, every state that permitted CCW over the last 30 years has seen a dramatic drop in violent crime.
Quite frankly, I'd love to see the whole country like the "Wild West" because statistically people in the so-called frontier towns and cities were vastly safer from violent crime than those who lived in the established eastern cities. And BOTH crime rates were a lot less than the rate is today.
The nice thing about allowing citizens to carry guns is that you don't have to carry one to be safer. The fact that criminals have no idea who is or isn't armed protects all. It is ONLY when you create so-called "Gun Free" zones that criminals truly know they are well protected from lethal retaliation.
The only difficult issue here is to actually get gun-control supporters to learn facts and not act on emotion. Well, that and to remove the obnoxious bias that exists in the media.
I agree with CCN on this one: As I understand it, fixing this loophole would do nothing to keep firearms out of the hands of law-abiding, mentally fit individuals. The two are not mutually exclusive.DukieDog said:...Go back to the ORIGINAL law. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...
This "self-correction" would not be an ideal situation! Mentally unfit individuals shooting it out with law-abiding CCWs is not my idea of a positive plan for maintaining order. Better to make it as hard as possible for mentally unfit individuals to get their hands on a gun, as per the terms of the proposed legislature.DukieDog said:...Then, let the violent criminals meet the determined citizens and after a few instances where the criminal is blown to his creator, the problem will pretty much be self correcting...
Agreed. But again, fixing this loophole does not detract from CCW rights for those fit to carry. In fact, keeping legally purchased firearms out of the hands of guys like Cho could only help safeguard CCW rights for the rest of us... the fact that he purchased that gun *legally* gives anti-gunners fuel for their specious, misguided arguments. And since people are upset by a tragedy like this, those on the fence are more likely to be swayed to the "guns are bad" side of the argument when the story breaks that he bought the gun legally even though he was ruled mentally ill in a court of law.DukieDog said:...The argument that granting everyone with the ability to have guns would only lead to more crime is complete nonsense. There doesn't exist a single shred of evidence to support such a theory. On the other hand, every state that permitted CCW over the last 30 years has seen a dramatic drop in violent crime...
Can't argue with you on this one...DukieDog said:...The only difficult issue here is to actually get gun-control supporters to learn facts and not act on emotion. Well, that and to remove the obnoxious bias that exists in the media...
This "self-correction" would not be an ideal situation! Mentally unfit individuals shooting it out with law-abiding CCWs is not my idea of a positive plan for maintaining order. Better to make it as hard as possible for mentally unfit individuals to get their hands on a gun, as per the terms of the proposed legislature.Xfactor said:[quote name='DukieDog']...Then, let the violent criminals meet the determined citizens and after a few instances where the criminal is blown to his creator, the problem will pretty much be self correcting...
There's a big difference between family counseling or couples therapy, and being deemed psychiatrically "unstable" in a court of law. Counseling/therapy is not in the scope of psychiatric background checks or the 4473.raz-0 said:... having your family sentenced to manadatory family therapy because your brother can't control himself might stick with you forever and prevent you form owning firearms.
What about a divorce court mandating couples therapy before granting a divorce? Should that stick with you forever?
This is my only concern here as well. We've all seen the "slippery slope" of gun control in the past. It starts with taking on an agenda that few will push back on. But then the momentum generated can be used to ratchet the agenda up a notch and go for something else - something that would never have budged otherwise. [Are we going to next hear that 33-rnd Glock mags have no place in civilian society?]raz-0 said:...what constitues failing the 4473 critera should be left at the federal level so states can't poisen the sytem to enact gun control by declaring whoever they want as mentally prohibited form ownership.
There's a big difference between family counseling or couples therapy, and being deemed psychiatrically "unstable" in a court of law. Counseling/therapy is not in the scope of psychiatric background checks or the 4473.Xfactor said:[quote name='raz-0'] ... having your family sentenced to manadatory family therapy because your brother can't control himself might stick with you forever and prevent you form owning firearms.
What about a divorce court mandating couples therapy before granting a divorce? Should that stick with you forever?
ClosetCaseNerd said:Okay, I'm willing to take the flames.
Are you suggesting we leave the legal loophole unclosed that allowed a court-deemed mentally ill person to obtain firearms?
Psychiatry is as much an art as a science, and he just HAPPENED to be deemed a hazard to himself, but not others (in the later case he would not of been able to obtain a firearm). But with this new legislation, constructed with help from the NRA, you are never permanently barred from firearm ownership. You can repeal your case at a later date, and prove your recovery in the same manner that was deemed you were unhealthy (doctors signature).
Does someone have a better idea?
Its a difficult issue.