Darth J wrote:So Markk, what you're saying is that the AR-15 is not the only kind of gun that should be banned.
No, not at all... I am saying that the AR-15 is not the only semi automatic weapon on the market, in fact, far from it. A Glock 45 is just as lethal, if not more so, at close range, and you can get a 26 round clip for 15 bucks in many states.
A mini 14 is in many ways a more effective rife than th AR-15, with options for many bells and whistles...including a bump system.
Darth J wrote:So Markk, what you're saying is that the AR-15 is not the only kind of gun that should be banned.
No, not at all... I am saying that the AR-15 is not the only semi automatic weapon on the market, in fact, far from it. A Glock 45 is just as lethal, if not more so, at close range, and you can get a 26 round clip for 15 bucks in many states.
A mini 14 is in many ways a more effective rife than th AR-15, with options for many bells and whistles...including a bump system.
In addition to my comments above, I also will note that if you deny people the right to own a gun if they are diagnosed with a mental illness, that all but guarantees that mental illness will be further stigmatized and people will do things to avoid finding themselves diagnosed with a mental illness. That will keep people away from treatment and make the problem of untreated mental illness worse.
If you think that a major cause of mass shootings is untreated mental illness, you are contributing to that problem by banning people with mental health diagnoses from owning guns.
Your prescriptions are sane and sober, and I appreciate getting the perspective from someone who is obviously informed. It may be true, as some assert, that there is a larger issue with cultural attitudes towards gun and violence that won't be instantly solved by gun control legislation, but law is a formative aspect of culture: they reflect a society's priorities, but they also condition them (e.g. attitudes toward smoking etc.). In this case, the culture seems largely in sympathy with the kinds of legal apparatus that you propose.
DrW wrote:Why not reinstate the assault rifle ban and further require that every current assault rifle owner register their firearm and get a special permit. Nobody would get grandfathered in. New assault rifle sales would cease as soon as present inventories were gone.
Yes, but then the government would take away all of our guns if we had to register them. Don't you remember how we used to own cars before the government made us register them?
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."
I don't know how it works in every state, but I can speak with some authority about how it works in my state as I primarily work with people who are mentally ill, receive SSDI, and need help with financial management. If there is specific reason to believe a person who meets that criteria would be unsafe with a gun, we apply to the state for restrictive measures based on our ability to provide evidence of sufficient risk that justifies restriction. (The same goes for access to sharps, and anything else you can think of that can be used to harm oneself or others.)
While this system isn't perfect, I would strongly argue it is superior and more humane than just blanket denying rights to disabled people as a class because of irrational fear based on stereotypes.
DoubtingThomas wrote:Would you support co-ed restrooms and co-ed locker-rooms? Restrooms and locker-rooms don't rape people, people rape people, right?
Man. You've got serious issues with sex, sexuality, and sexual behavior. I'd recommend getting into therapy, but I'm pretty sure you'd just fall in love with your therapist.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
DoubtingThomas wrote:Would you support co-ed restrooms and co-ed locker-rooms? Restrooms and locker-rooms don't rape people, people rape people, right?
Man. You've got serious issues with sex, sexuality, and sexual behavior. I'd recommend getting into therapy, but I'm pretty sure you'd just fall in love with your therapist.
- Doc
His link is trying to make the argument that the logic against gun control laws is in contradiction to the logic in favor of restrictions on who may use restrooms.
EAllusion wrote:I don't know how it works in every state, but I can speak with some authority about how it works in my state as I primarily work with people who are mentally ill, receive SSDI, and need help with financial management. If there is specific reason to believe a person who meets that criteria would be unsafe with a gun, we apply to the state for restrictive measures based on our ability to provide evidence of sufficient risk that justifies restriction. (The same goes for access to sharps, and anything else you can think of that can be used to harm oneself or others.)
While this system isn't perfect, I would strongly argue it is superior and more humane than just blanket denying rights to disabled people as a class because of irrational fear based on stereotypes.
In this latest shooting, I have not seen where this individual had any professional history, and yet everyone that seemed to know him, feared this of him. What a slippery slope (witch hunts come to mind) of third parties reporting scary people, which would then require professional evaluation and review of weapon ownership.
yea, involuntary medical intervention, wow, yea ugly but can something along these lines not be worked out? i.e. why did the system fail on this 1 year ago after clear public signs were reported to the FBI?