LDS Teenager Murdered at her High School in Parkland

[_Darth J]

No I understood his Socratic style remark. I just didn't want to follow my own reasoning to its logical conclusion.

FIFY

[_Darth J]

Don't you remember how we used to own cars before the government made us register them?

One day they tell you you have to record the deed to your house at the county recorder's office, and next thing you know, the Bolsheviks are rolling in.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

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.

Right, however I'm commenting on his penchant to default to convoluted and sometimes pointedly regressed takes on human sexual dynamics. It's like it's a mystery to him, but he's forging ahead anyway.

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

How can that be fixed?

I dunno. Don't make guns accessible to people?

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

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?

How can that be fixed?

The state has always been able to employ experts who will confirm their prejudices to take the actions they want to take against people. The only way you stop that is by not giving the state that power in the first place or, if you must, making the burden of proof high. It would be a nightmare if people could be flagged as troublemakers, forced into professional evaluation, and have their rights stripped according to simple diagnosis. I'd hope that due process protections afforded in the Constitution would make any overt attempt to do that a dead letter, but you never know.

We already have involuntary commitment systems with actual due process protections that includes the ability of the state to restrict people's access to weapons. What we are talking about is people who want to lower the threshold make it a lot easier to strip a group of people they fear of having guns. No longer do you need to provide reason to believe a person is a danger to themselves or others with evidence specific to that person that links their behavioral condition to the proposed restriction.

[_RockSlider]

What we are talking about is people who want to lower the threshold make it a lot easier to strip a group of people they fear of having guns.

So trying to strip all people of having guns is a better/easier solution?

if someone acted 1 year back on the reports, perhaps this whole thing would have been avoided.

[_EAllusion]

What we are talking about is people who want to lower the threshold make it a lot easier to strip a group of people they fear of having guns.

So trying to strip all people of having guns is a better/easier solution?

if someone acted 1 year back on the reports, perhaps this whole thing would have been avoided.

It certainly would be more fair. I'm not advocating that, though.

While mental illness isn't a common thread in virtually all the mass shootings and mental illness per se doesn't make a person more likely to be a violent criminal, there is something that does: being male. If we're going to blanket ban a group from owning guns due to belonging to a risky cohort, it would make far more sense to forbid men from owning guns. It's just that we immediately see that as unfair discrimination based on prejudice and dismiss it as absurd. It is no less so in the case of mental illness. More so, in fact.

It's actually quite interesting that mass shootings are so disproportionately male given that women can operate guns too. Fortunately, being male isn't stigmatized enough to cause people to believe that men should be discriminated against as a group based on the actions of a few of them.

[_RockSlider]

Perhaps you are on to something here!

I used to be very pro-gun, but perhaps it's possible to restrict ownership in some way that would/could get guns off the streets. It is just too crazy out there anymore, children killing children.

I'm not sure I see that happening. Prohibition on alcohol did not work, would prohibition on guns work out any better?

[_Markk]

Would you support co-ed restrooms and co-ed locker-rooms? Restrooms and locker-rooms don't rape people, people rape people, right?

Watch Gun Control vs. Restroom Control

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHmZaBKqARo

Markk, there is no need for civilians to have anything more powerful than 8 round handguns.

Yes...people rape people, a bathroom never raped a person, just a people kill people.

I don't support co-ed rest rooms in that I would not like some fat old man crapping and farting, or wiggling his penis next to my grand daughter, daughter, and wife...maybe you wouldn't mind, I do. And I would be uncomfortable using the restroom in front of women, young women, and especially little girls.

Would you feel comfortable using the rest room in front of a little girl?

Your argument is just silly.

Markk, there is no need for civilians to have anything more powerful than 8 round handguns.

Says who? By your logic guns should only be allowed to shoot 8 people at a time without a person reloading them.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'm not sure I see that happening. Prohibition on alcohol did not work, would prohibition on guns work out any better?

Any prohibition isn't going to be 100% effective. I'm fairly certain if we banned firearms we'd see a significant reduction in related *insert incident* over the following decades.

- Doc