The UCSB shooters parents blame 2nd amendment.
-
I have no problem keeping guns away from those who shouldn't have them.
The NRA is fine with that.
But telling millions of good, decent, law abiding citizens who have guns,
that they are guilty of something, then penalize them, then fine them and fee them,
force them to register all guns, then publish the lists of those who registered,
then start dickering with definitions of what kind of gun they are allowed to own, etc etc etc....
with the "idea" that it will stop nutjobs and crooks from having guns....
is bogus.
So, I call it "anti-gunners" because of the apparent ulterior motives. There, I'm giving anti gunners
the benefit of the doubt for being intelligent and well meaning.
Like Feinstein - she has a gun, has used it to defend herself, yet she said that if she could have gotten the votes,
she'd ban them.
I'm fine with background checks. But those aren't going to stop crooks from getting guns on the black market,
and reselling them to violent nutjobs.
The more obvious explanation for the conflicting "intent", and dubious actions behind the words -
is political antagonism, posturing for liberal dominance over conservatives.
-
Re: Mental Health
Therapy is only going to help those who want to help themselves. I read that this kid was cleared by a therapist a few weeks/months prior because he was able to game the system. The kid was intelligent, but so deluded that he was practically untreatable. The kid needed to be committed to a hospital, but if there's no prior criminal history, and he's unwilling to commit himself, there wasn't much evidence that would convince a judge to order him help. As a country, we've decided that the right to own firearms is covered by the 2nd amendment. Unfortunately, that means that people with a clean background who go off the deep end will occasionally do something like this.
-
Unless the NRA thinks everyone should have guns and views any kind of reform as an attempt to eliminate all guns.
What exactly is the issue with "smart" guns again? Something to do with some big brother Obamao spying conspiracy, right?
-
smart guns? What happens when they don't work?
What happens when they are interfered with by a jammer?
Of course, the biggest problem, is cost. Instead of a pistol costing
somewhere around 400 = 500 bucks, the cost could easily triple.
And, no smart gun is smart enough to not be used by a nutjob in a violent crime.
so the point is.............
-
Any change we are going to make has to start somewhere. This idea of "all or nothing" is ridiculous.
"We could start requiring auto manufacturers to put seatbelts in cars, but there are already so many out there without them. Why even bother? 'Criminals just won't use it anyway".....
Do you even know exactly how a jammer would work or how feasible it would be?
How much of your believes as far as the smart gun not working are based in reality and fact and how much of it is just what you hope or what pro gun groups have told you?
There are many methods and technologies to use to make a gun "smart". I would think the benefits of only the owner of the gun being able to use it outweigh any negatives. No teens taking guns are doing something dumb, not kids accidentally hurting themselves, no one having their gun used against them, etc. I would think most people would be completely behind furthering this technology and implementing it in the USA.
Instead store owners that have said they will sell it have received death threats and it has forced them to take them off the shelves.
-
Mental health, misogyny, spoiled/entitlement,gender placement in society. These are the issues. not the gun/knife
And like I said before are you willing to pay more taxes for a mental health overhaul? You know that would mean changing the standard for gun ownership don't you?
And like I said before are you willing to pay more taxes for a mental health overhaul? You know that would mean changing the standard for gun ownership don't you?
I already responded to this (you ignored it, and started crying about an autism witch hunt). No overhaul necessary. The data is there. Use it. (California is the only state that kind of is, actually).
Don't be afraid to hurt somebody's feelings, is all this 'overhaul' really boils down to.
-
Re: Mental Health
Therapy is only going to help those who want to help themselves. I read that this kid was cleared by a therapist a few weeks/months prior because he was able to game the system. The kid was intelligent, but so deluded that he was practically untreatable. The kid needed to be committed to a hospital, but if there's no prior criminal history, and he's unwilling to commit himself, there wasn't much evidence that would convince a judge to order him help. As a country, we've decided that the right to own firearms is covered by the 2nd amendment. Unfortunately, that means that people with a clean background who go off the deep end will occasionally do something like this.
Re: Mental Health
Therapy is only going to help those who want to help themselves. I read that this kid was cleared by a therapist a few weeks/months prior because he was able to game the system. The kid was intelligent, but so deluded that he was practically untreatable. The kid needed to be committed to a hospital, but if there's no prior criminal history, and he's unwilling to commit himself, there wasn't much evidence that would convince a judge to order him help. As a country, we've decided that the right to own firearms is covered by the 2nd amendment. Unfortunately, that means that people with a clean background who go off the deep end will occasionally do something like this.
That would be nice.
As for the rest of your post, I agree with it except that questions regarding the nature of the youtube videos (that sparked the initial phone call) should have been pursued. This would have ultimately led to somebody with some common sense (hopefully) in the police dept. viewing said videos and getting a warrant to search the apt. This combined with the police report of the kid trying to shove some frat bros off a porch the previous summer (no charges filed, but a police report on the matter still exists) would have been enough for a warrant demonstrating that the kid had some real, violent tendencies.
Sure, luck means a lot in football. Not having a good quarterback is bad luck. -Don Shula -
Woody,
You used "VIOLEVE" for "VIOLENCE". "Violeve" isn't a word.
You used "knowing the different" instead of "knowing the difference"
Now, you used "How much of your believes as far as"...when you should have said
"How many of your beliefs as far as".
Face it. You can't keep up with any conservation. Perhaps you need some cognitive speech therapy or something.
-
typos don't mean shit. My posts have more than anybody elses more than likely.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
I have no problem keeping guns away from those who shouldn't have them.
The NRA is fine with that.
But telling millions of good, decent, law abiding citizens who have guns,
that they are guilty of something, then penalize them, then fine them and fee them,
force them to register all guns, then publish the lists of those who registered,
then start dickering with definitions of what kind of gun they are allowed to own, etc etc etc....
with the "idea" that it will stop nutjobs and crooks from having guns....
is bogus.
So, I call it "anti-gunners" because of the apparent ulterior motives. There, I'm giving anti gunners
the benefit of the doubt for being intelligent and well meaning.
Like Feinstein - she has a gun, has used it to defend herself, yet she said that if she could have gotten the votes,
she'd ban them.
I'm fine with background checks. But those aren't going to stop crooks from getting guns on the black market,
and reselling them to violent nutjobs.
The more obvious explanation for the conflicting "intent", and dubious actions behind the words -
is political antagonism, posturing for liberal dominance over conservatives.
I have no problem keeping guns away from those who shouldn't have them.
The NRA is fine with that.
But telling millions of good, decent, law abiding citizens who have guns,
that they are guilty of something, then penalize them, then fine them and fee them,
force them to register all guns, then publish the lists of those who registered,
then start dickering with definitions of what kind of gun they are allowed to own, etc etc etc....
with the "idea" that it will stop nutjobs and crooks from having guns....
is bogus.
So, I call it "anti-gunners" because of the apparent ulterior motives. There, I'm giving anti gunners
the benefit of the doubt for being intelligent and well meaning.
Like Feinstein - she has a gun, has used it to defend herself, yet she said that if she could have gotten the votes,
she'd ban them.
I'm fine with background checks. But those aren't going to stop crooks from getting guns on the black market,
and reselling them to violent nutjobs.
The more obvious explanation for the conflicting "intent", and dubious actions behind the words -
is political antagonism, posturing for liberal dominance over conservatives.
At least this is an argument even if I don't agree that the ominous they is out to get your guns for, you know, fun or whatever.
-
By the way my feelings about guns have not the first thing to do with "liberal dominance over conservatives" and the fact that that thought even enters your mind is interesting. Follow the party line at all costs cal. The liberals are gonna getcha.
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
Of course different issues are, well, different. I would say that the elimination of guns in the public hands, similar to England, would be an issue favored by those on the left and the eventual goal.
WSS
-
Of course different issues are, well, different. I would say that the elimination of guns in the public hands, similar to England, would be an issue favored by those on the left and the eventual goal.
WSS
Of course different issues are, well, different. I would say that the elimination of guns in the public hands, similar to England, would be an issue favored by those on the left and the eventual goal.
WSS
I'd say that a country where you don't need a gun should be the objective. Work on fixing that, then less people will carry guns, and eventually guns will just be used recreationally - ie, at a shooting range, where they can be locked up when not in use for example.
-
Of course different issues are, well, different. I would say that the elimination of guns in the public hands, similar to England, would be an issue favored by those on the left and the eventual goal.
WSS
I'd say that a country where you don't need a gun should be the objective. Work on fixing that, then less people will carry guns, and eventually guns will just be used recreationally - ie, at a shooting range, where they can be locked up when not in use for example.
I'd say that a country where you don't need a gun should be the objective. Work on fixing that, then less people will carry guns, and eventually guns will just be used recreationally - ie, at a shooting range, where they can be locked up when not in use for example.
Chris I'm not weighing in on what should or shouldn't be done. You guys can worry about that. I'm just pointing out that when someone says nobody wants to take your guns, well it isn't correct. There are plenty of people who would like to see guns banned altogether.
But sure, a society where everyone loves one another is certainly a lofty, if unattainable, goal.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
I'd say that a country where you don't need a gun should be the objective. Work on fixing that, then less people will carry guns, and eventually guns will just be used recreationally - ie, at a shooting range, where they can be locked up when not in use for example.
Chris I'm not weighing in on what should or shouldn't be done. You guys can worry about that. I'm just pointing out that when someone says nobody wants to take your guns, well it isn't correct. There are plenty of people who would like to see guns banned altogether.
But sure, a society where everyone loves one another is certainly a lofty, if unattainable, goal.
WSS
Chris I'm not weighing in on what should or shouldn't be done. You guys can worry about that. I'm just pointing out that when someone says nobody wants to take your guns, well it isn't correct. There are plenty of people who would like to see guns banned altogether.
But sure, a society where everyone loves one another is certainly a lofty, if unattainable, goal.
WSS
Of course, there's still going to be violent crime. But if you have a guy with a baseball (or cricket) bat, it's a bit harder for him to go on a rampage than if he's got a gun.
I agree, plenty of people want to see guns banned - myself included, at least partially, and not immediately obviously, but as soon as feasibly possible.
-
I'd say that a country where you don't need a gun should be the objective. Work on fixing that, then less people will carry guns, and eventually guns will just be used recreationally - ie, at a shooting range, where they can be locked up when not in use for example.
Chris I'm not weighing in on what should or shouldn't be done. You guys can worry about that. I'm just pointing out that when someone says nobody wants to take your guns, well it isn't correct. There are plenty of people who would like to see guns banned altogether.
But sure, a society where everyone loves one another is certainly a lofty, if unattainable, goal.
WSS
Chris I'm not weighing in on what should or shouldn't be done. You guys can worry about that. I'm just pointing out that when someone says nobody wants to take your guns, well it isn't correct. There are plenty of people who would like to see guns banned altogether.
But sure, a society where everyone loves one another is certainly a lofty, if unattainable, goal.
WSS
I meant nobody on this Internet forum. You know, where we're all posting.
-
Chris I'm not weighing in on what should or shouldn't be done. You guys can worry about that. I'm just pointing out that when someone says nobody wants to take your guns, well it isn't correct. There are plenty of people who would like to see guns banned altogether.
But sure, a society where everyone loves one another is certainly a lofty, if unattainable, goal.
WSS
I meant nobody on this Internet forum. You know, where we're all posting.
Read the previous post.I meant nobody on this Internet forum. You know, where we're all posting.
I don't even think it's an outrageous proposition. Just that I doubt it would work
WSS
-
typos don't mean shit. My posts have more than anybody elses more than likely.
WSS
typos don't mean shit. My posts have more than anybody elses more than likely.
WSS
Calling out typos from me posting on my phone is much easier than actual trying to respond for Cal. It is an easy cop out.
-
By the way my feelings about guns have not the first thing to do with "liberal dominance over conservatives" and the fact that that thought even enters your mind is interesting. Follow the party line at all costs cal. The liberals are gonna getcha.
By the way my feelings about guns have not the first thing to do with "liberal dominance over conservatives" and the fact that that thought even enters your mind is interesting. Follow the party line at all costs cal. The liberals are gonna getcha.
Pretty much this.
Any original thought or belief is squashed. Following the party no matter what and agreeing with them on everything, brilliant.
Political parties suck...
-
Chris I'm not weighing in on what should or shouldn't be done. You guys can worry about that. I'm just pointing out that when someone says nobody wants to take your guns, well it isn't correct. There are plenty of people who would like to see guns banned altogether.
But sure, a society where everyone loves one another is certainly a lofty, if unattainable, goal.
WSS
Of course, there's still going to be violent crime. But if you have a guy with a baseball (or cricket) bat, it's a bit harder for him to go on a rampage than if he's got a gun.
I agree, plenty of people want to see guns banned - myself included, at least partially, and not immediately obviously, but as soon as feasibly possible.
Of course, there's still going to be violent crime. But if you have a guy with a baseball (or cricket) bat, it's a bit harder for him to go on a rampage than if he's got a gun.
I agree, plenty of people want to see guns banned - myself included, at least partially, and not immediately obviously, but as soon as feasibly possible.
People will commit crime, even mass murders using all sorts of means. Look at the Boston Marathon Bombings. No guns used. 9/11, no guns used. People will find a way to assault, commit crimes and murder with our without guns.
But I also believe that there should be a way, where we can legislate gun ownership to those who meet certain criteria. Background checks are the first step, but it's not the solution, just a part of it. And maybe there isn't an absolute solution. You can legislate morality. There will be evil and those who commit atrocities. Each time we try and prevent the smallest incidents, even in the playgrounds at school, we are taking our freedoms.
This country was founded on certain rights. And we are seeing our government ever slowly creep up on many of those rights. Government was to be small and serve the people. Each thing we give them, the more power and control they have.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login