You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
September 26, 2017, 02:34:35 AM
Top RP Sites - Vote Daily

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)  (Read 22110 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Vergil Tanner

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #175 on: October 11, 2015, 04:11:27 PM »
So this entire thread should be dictated by what you deem important, then? All ongoing conversations should cease immediately when you decide they don't matter, regardless of how these real issues affect real people?

That isn't what he said. He made a joke in a lighthearted manner, and now you're twisting his words and overreacting in the most childish way possible. He said something you took the wrong way, so now you're "taking your ball and going home." Real mature, Ephiral. My impression was that you were more "grown up" than that.

I would've said I was on your side on that - Mental illness is used as a distraction, and this hurts the mentally ill. But... I refuse to stand with someone who would rather silence a mentally ill person speaking out against being scapegoated than consider how these things affect other people.

And where did he say that, pray tell? I've been lurking for a while, and I've never seen him say anything anywhere near what you're accusing him of. Cool your jets, take a breath and actually read what he wrote, not what you think he wrote. He made a joke in order to - I assume - lighten the mood a little, nothing more, nothing less.

Probably won't be back in-thread for a while for fairly obvious reasons.

Good. Maybe you can take that opportunity to take a step back from what is obviously a very personal issue for you, take a deep breath, calm down and then re-approach the thread in a more levelheaded manner....because on this subject, you seem all too ready to tear peoples throats out if they say something that you misinterpret. It's something I've noticed...you seem to be very willing to make accusations and claim that somebody is saying something that they actually aren't, and then insult or yell at them for what you think they said, especially if it's a subject that you're passionate about....and while passion is a good thing, being willing to leap into "attack mode" at the slightest provocation is certainly not conducive to a healthy, active, intelligent discussion. It's the third thread I've seen you do it in, and I've only seen your posts in four threads in this section thus far. Not a very good record, as I see it. You're obviously intelligent, but you definitely need to work on not taking or making everything so damn personal.



On the subject of Gun Control:

First off, I live in the UK, so I've always found America's fascination with guns weird. I get that it was necessary when it was written in - they were at war with the British Empire, so having a militia made sense - but technically speaking, the second amendment doesn't actually say "everybody gets a gun," but more outlines the formation and maintenance of a "regulated militia." You can get guns in the UK, but they are VERY heavily regulated. You can only get certain types for certain purposes for use in certain areas, and aren't generally allowed them outside the house....hell, even our police officers don't generally have them. You need to go all the way up to Special Forces police squads to find more than one officer with a firearm. Some have them, but the vast majority don't. And guess how much gun crime, mass shootings and police murder-by-gun we have? Practically 0. It happens, of course, but you are a staggering 58 times less likely to get shot in the UK than in America. There's, like, 1.2 gun-related deaths in the UK per 100,000 residents or something like that.

BUT, that being said....I know how the Americans are about their guns, so whatever, you can keep them. HOWEVER, I think that your gun laws should be a lot more strict than they are; limit the size of the weapon (for example, NO automatic weapons whatsoever), magazine size, calibre, how many firearms you're allowed in the house, where you're allowed to take them (as opposed to what the Right Wing wants you to think, only 13% of shootings happen in gun-free zones), etc etc. For example, no firearms in school or in the shopping centre or the cinema or something, y'know? Second, universal background checks for felons, history of violence, links to certain groups, etc etc.

And I'm going to make myself VERY unpopular here, I'm sure, but a limited amount of access to mental health records as well.

Now, hear me out: I was founder and president of my universities mental health support group, my best friend at university suffers from some acute issues as does my ex-GF (who is still a good friend). I'm very intimately familiar with the stigma that surrounds those that suffer from mental health and I think it's disgusting. HOWEVER, that doesn't eliminate the fact that there are certain types of mental health issues that can increase the chances of violence (I personally would classify developmental issues as a mental health issue, since it has to do with how the brain functions....there are different categories of mental health issues, obviously; Autism is hardly the same thing as depression, for example). Now, do I think that the government should have complete access to your psychiatric or clinical records in regards to mental health? No, of course not.

HOWEVER, if you apply for a gun owners licence (which I think would be the easiest way to do it; create a universal licence that everybody has to get approved before buying a firearm, and then having that be run through a system every time you buy a gun....also have it expire, so you have to re-apply periodically, AND give it certain conditions so that if - for example - you commit assault or rape or something like that, you are legally required to hand over all your guns, which they would know exactly what you have because it would be kept on your Gun Owners file), you automatically opt in to a background check....which includes having to declare if you're currently in therapy or have mental health issues. If you say yes, they go to your doctor and have a list of "conditions" and "diagnoses" (for example, the list could include paranoid schizophrenia, periodic hallucinations, clinically psychotic, whether you could be considered a psycho or sociopath (NOT saying that those two are mental illnesses, just that they could be on that sort of "checklist")) and the therapist/doctor would say "Yes" or "no." They wouldn't have to say what condition on that list you have, just whether what you have IS on the list. They could also ask your therapists and doctors if, in their professional opinion, whether you can be trusted with a firearm. That way, the government doesn't know what you have or to what severity, but can still get experts advice on whether your "problems" could lead to violence in some way. Because although most sufferers of mental illnesses and issues are law abiding, ordinary people, there ARE those whose problems can cause violence, whether malicious or not, and this would at least go some way to stopping those select few from getting firearms, y'know?

In fact, why go with that roundabout way? Just make part of the application process for a licence a mandatory psyche eval, so a group of experts conduct interviews and tests and scans and whatnot to figure out if they think that you are "stable" enough to be trusted with a firearm. That way, your health issues aren't dragged into the light, and the government can at least do something to try and cut out the people who might not have committed a crime, but are still too...imbalanced...to be safely given a gun. Or maybe do both, just to be sure. These are just off-the-top-of-my-head ideas and are obviously very rough and unrefined, but they're a starting point, at the very least. What's certain is that America's current gun laws are woefully inadequate.

Offline Blythe

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #176 on: October 11, 2015, 05:17:09 PM »
Thread is going in rather in circles and tempers have been a bit up.

Thread will be locked for 24 hours.

Offline Blythe

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #177 on: October 13, 2015, 10:15:15 PM »
Sorry for the delay, folks.

The thread is now unlocked. Play nice, and should there be another need for another lock, it'll be longer than 24 hours.

Offline theLeslie

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #178 on: October 13, 2015, 10:35:39 PM »
To touch on the issue of gun reform, gun control, or whatever you would like to call it.  I think it is important to note that doing things like requiring a professional evaluation before being 'permitted' to exercise your second amendment rights places too much power in the hands of those who do the evaluations.  People are not perfect.  People are prone to making mistakes, and to taking advantage of their position for personal reasons or just personal gain.  Such a system where a limited body of a few determine which of the masses is permitted to take advantage of their constitutionally granted rights is assured to fall into corruption based only on the fact that it is composed of, sponsored by, and over seen by fallible humans.

I don't see why so much effort is spent in trying to determine who can or should be able to purchase a firearm, when the gun itself is not the issue.  The issue is the state of the culture those guns exist in, and the levels of rational thought existing within said society.  Guns are dangerous right now, yes, because our society is so perfectly tuned to produce dangerous, uncompromising people who are prone to severe and radical thoughts.  This is a matter of culture, not law.  We need a change in our society.  We need more tolerance towards each other, and towards those who are different from us.  Right now, we have less and less.  It has become common to think that because something offends us, that thing has to stop happening.  It doesn't matter if a majority of people do not find it offensive, if one person is offended, it is suddenly a huge deal.  This is a wrong way of thinking, this sort of mentality elevates the self and lowers the value of community.

I don't believe guns need to be regulated any more than they are today.  We should close loopholes that allow guns to be purchased without criminal background checks, but I feel we need to spend some time in collective cultural meditation, until we understand that we're one people.  In spite of our differences, we are America (sorry non-USA people, I'm speaking from my view of my nation).  Until we stop hating each other, it doesn't matter what weapons we limit.  We're always going to find a way to kill each other.

I am a "democrat" though I pretty much identify independent, I'm not a gun owner, and I never intend on being a gun owner. 

Offline eBadger

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #179 on: October 14, 2015, 03:26:55 AM »
Thank you for the break, Sherlock.  Was getting a bit tense indeed! 

On which note, I'll try a last, less confrontational explanation and wean myself from this conversation. 

Then you noted that, even when examining only mentally ill criminals, less than 20% of their crimes could be connected in abny way to their illness? If so, why make the disingenuous "just under 50%" statement in the first place?

Because "Not usually" was used as a response to "Do you feel there are individuals who, due to mental challenges, present a significant danger if given access to firearms?".  I was pointing out that it wasn't actually an answer to my question about whether such people exist (or, if it was, it was an affirmative answer). 

Quote
Indeed.  So you're saying there are no mentally ill individuals who are prone to violence toward others, or harm to themselves, due to their medical condition?  That such persons do not exist?
No, I'm saying that "mental illness" or "insanity" - as a broad category - is an incredibly shitty indicator of violence. Delusions and paranoia in particular are even worse indicators of violence. Taking away rights available to the general public from these people, on the grounds that "they might get violent," is counterproductive and disenfranchising.

Super; we seem to be in basic agreement. 

And yet you argue against me, when I object to the use of a label that is generally applied to mentally ill people as a category

I think the issue you are observing is that I don't see Sociopath as generally applied; I think it's commonly understood that only a small fraction of mentally ill people are "antisocial, often criminal, and...lack a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience."  YMMV. 

All semantic arguments aside, and also in response to this: 
You can't compel a person's psychotherapist to disclose their condition any more than you can compel a doctor to disclose a patient's illnesses. 

The government disagrees.  There are a few exceptions to Confidentiality.  The pertinent ones for this conversation include:
Quote
Where there is a reasonable suspicion of child abuse or elder adult physical abuse;
Where there is a reasonable suspicion that you may present a danger of violence to others;
Where there is a reasonable suspicion that you are likely to harm yourself unless protective measures are taken.

In each of these cases a therapist is allowed, and at times required, to break confidentiality.  I would forward that part of such a warning should involve temporary (six month?) registry on a no-buy list, which could be appealed.  Registry should not relate to any specific illnesses or be an avenue to restrict anyone without cause.  But I do feel it's a reasonable precaution that would save lives without significant or undue infringement of rights. 

yet I don't see anyone calling for background checks into someone's drinking habits or regular drug screenings for gun owners.

Not bad ideas.  There's some redundancy with criminal checks (it's illegal to buy and possess drugs, but not to be violently insane or suicidal).  I'm not sure how you'd realistically check someone's drinking habits.  A drug test to get or renew a license makes sense. 

My sincere apologies if our conversation upset you.  Obviously this is personal, and I respect your passionate comments against discrimination.  Just remember to inform and understand before attacking; I think you'd discover that, aside from some controversial terms and lack of understanding nuances, most of the people in this thread (including me) would agree with most of what you have to say. 

Offline Ironwolf85

  • Eletronic Scribe of naughty things.
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Location: New England Somewhere I won't tell you
  • Gender: Male
  • Here to have fun, Role play, and maybe get laid
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #180 on: October 14, 2015, 03:35:29 AM »
To touch on the issue of gun reform, gun control, or whatever you would like to call it.  I think it is important to note that doing things like requiring a professional evaluation before being 'permitted' to exercise your second amendment rights places too much power in the hands of those who do the evaluations.  People are not perfect.  People are prone to making mistakes, and to taking advantage of their position for personal reasons or just personal gain.  Such a system where a limited body of a few determine which of the masses is permitted to take advantage of their constitutionally granted rights is assured to fall into corruption based only on the fact that it is composed of, sponsored by, and over seen by fallible humans.

I don't see why so much effort is spent in trying to determine who can or should be able to purchase a firearm, when the gun itself is not the issue.  The issue is the state of the culture those guns exist in, and the levels of rational thought existing within said society.  Guns are dangerous right now, yes, because our society is so perfectly tuned to produce dangerous, uncompromising people who are prone to severe and radical thoughts.  This is a matter of culture, not law.  We need a change in our society.  We need more tolerance towards each other, and towards those who are different from us.  Right now, we have less and less.  It has become common to think that because something offends us, that thing has to stop happening.  It doesn't matter if a majority of people do not find it offensive, if one person is offended, it is suddenly a huge deal.  This is a wrong way of thinking, this sort of mentality elevates the self and lowers the value of community.

I don't believe guns need to be regulated any more than they are today.  We should close loopholes that allow guns to be purchased without criminal background checks, but I feel we need to spend some time in collective cultural meditation, until we understand that we're one people.  In spite of our differences, we are America (sorry non-USA people, I'm speaking from my view of my nation).  Until we stop hating each other, it doesn't matter what weapons we limit.  We're always going to find a way to kill each other.

I am a "democrat" though I pretty much identify independent, I'm not a gun owner, and I never intend on being a gun owner.

thank you... thank you very much for saving me from working towards the root of the problem by directly pointing at it.
I beat around the bush too much.

Online Vergil Tanner

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #181 on: October 14, 2015, 06:18:30 AM »
To touch on the issue of gun reform, gun control, or whatever you would like to call it.  I think it is important to note that doing things like requiring a professional evaluation before being 'permitted' to exercise your second amendment rights places too much power in the hands of those who do the evaluations.

So we shouldn't try and evaluate the people we're giving dangerous firearms to? Saying "Guns don't kill people" is just like saying "defibrillators don't save people." I don't think anybody is saying "Take the guns away," but the fact of the matter, Leslie, is that Obama is exactly right; America is the ONLY "developed" country where these mass shootings happen on a regular basis, and statistics show that countries with stricter gun laws than America have less gun-related deaths than America. America has the laxest gun laws and the most gun crime in the Western World. So why on Earth wouldn't stricter gun laws be a sensible idea?

People are not perfect.  People are prone to making mistakes, and to taking advantage of their position for personal reasons or just personal gain.  Such a system where a limited body of a few determine which of the masses is permitted to take advantage of their constitutionally granted rights is assured to fall into corruption based only on the fact that it is composed of, sponsored by, and over seen by fallible humans.

You know what? I would rather people get a bit corrupt from choosing who got guns than another school got shot up in a few months, but that's just me. But by your own logic...you're saying that we shouldn't have a group of people saying "This person is a felon previously convicted of Assault With A Deadly Weapon," or "This person is convinced that the voices in his head are Angels telling him that all Latinos need to die" (an extreme case, but it's possible; psychosis takes many forms, after all), so it's probably best NOT to give them a gun.
Besides, by your own logic, that means we shouldn't even have a government, since they're in the business of telling us what we can and can't do. We shouldn't have background checks for employment, since that means that the individuals are telling us whether or not we can work, we shouldn't have an application process for schools, since everybody has the right to education....it's a nice idea, but it's misguided. Some people just shouldn't be allowed certain shit.


Also, on the note of your Second Amendment, it actually reads:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

First off, it's kinda vague by what it means by "militia;" does it refer to the national guard or the army, or each states independent militia? Either way, not important. The reason I bring this up is because:

"A well regulated Militia"
"Well Regulated"
"Well Regulated"

IN THE CONSTITUTION, it says "REGULATED militia," which suggests some government oversight as to who gets the firearm and who doesn't. It doesn't say "GUNS FOR EVERYBODY, NO EXCEPTIONS!"


I don't see why so much effort is spent in trying to determine who can or should be able to purchase a firearm, when the gun itself is not the issue.

...to....stop these shootings happening so often? Countries with fewer guns and more gun control have less gun crime. You're arguing against pretty ironclad statistics here. I agree that guns aren't the root cause, but SO WHAT? The fact that anybody with ill-intent can SO EASILY get a firearm IS a problem that needs to be addressed, and the more you oppose it, the more you're inadvertently saying "These mass shootings? I don't really want to solve them." You can address the root cause AND the equipment used by people to do harm. It isn't a "one or the other" thing. So tell me exactly...why shouldn't America have tighter gun laws, if it's been proven that tighter gun laws reduce gun crime?

Oh, and Gun Free Zones have fewer gun crimes. Just putting it out there.


The issue is the state of the culture those guns exist in, and the levels of rational thought existing within said society.  Guns are dangerous right now, yes, because our society is so perfectly tuned to produce dangerous, uncompromising people who are prone to severe and radical thoughts.

I agree, and that needs to be addressed. But why can't you also put stricter gun laws in place to STOP THOSE PEOPLE GETTING FIREARMS? You're never going to de-radicalise everybody and you're never going to be able to catch and pre-emptively stop every serial killer and mass shooter, so why not cut them off at the knees and make them getting the WEAPONS they use much harder? Law abiding, average citizens would have almost nothing to worry about in getting guns, but people who might be issues WOULD. This is one of the occasions where a "Big Government" is necessary, since they're responsible for societies well being, and having a mass shooting every few months is NOT good for society. Plus, people use guns for more than just "radical thought." There are people who use them to commit murders over personal matters, or people who use them to attack people because they've been pissed off or had a bad day at work. How do you address THOSE issues?


This is a matter of culture, not law.

Completely and utterly wrong. It IS a matter of law, since these weapons are used to BREAK the law and hurt people. While you're arguing for a "change in society," the chances are, somebody out there in America is right now picking up a gun with the intent to do harm.
You're arguing with statistics here. 90% of the American populace supports gun law reform. only 13% of gun crime occurs in gun free zones. In the UK, for example, where gun laws are rather strict, you are 58 times less likely to get shot. In Europe, there is roughly 1 gun death per 100,000 people every year. In America, that figure is closer to 9 or 10. Yes, society plays a role, but it's indisputable that the ease of access to guns in the USA also plays a role, and the statistics show that if you increase the strictness of gun laws, you get less gun crime. It's as simple as that! Basically what you're advocating is NOT passing gun reform laws and thereby causing more people to die. You can address the society in the long run, but in the short run at the very least, the USA NEEDS to increase its gun legislation. It's the laxest in the Western World and America has the MOST proportional gun violence. Increase gun legislation, decrease gun crime. It really is that goddamn simple.

 
We need a change in our society.  We need more tolerance towards each other, and towards those who are different from us.

Agreed. But how will that stop people like the Sandy Hook Shooter from gunning people down? There will ALWAYS be loners and there will ALWAYS be people who are a little unhinged and there will ALWAYS be people with extreme ideas. You can't stamp them out completely. It just isn't possible. So what do you do? YOU MAKE IT HARDER FOR THEM TO GET DEADLY WEAPONS. I agree that American Society needs to change, but why is that mutually exclusive with gun control? This isn't an argument against gun control, this is just an argument for societal change, which inevitably happens at a slow rate. The only anti-gun control argument I've heard is "It'll take away my rights!" Sorry, but if a universal background check would deny you a firearm, you aren't the kind of person I want having a gun in the first place. Your right to swing your arms around ends at somebody elses face. If there is reasonable cause to think that you could use your gun to hurt somebody, or you've used it to hurt somebody in the past, you no longer have that right because you can't be trusted. Guns aren't toys, and they shouldn't be handed out like they are.


Right now, we have less and less.  It has become common to think that because something offends us, that thing has to stop happening.  It doesn't matter if a majority of people do not find it offensive, if one person is offended, it is suddenly a huge deal.  This is a wrong way of thinking, this sort of mentality elevates the self and lowers the value of community.

And yet, that is what you're saying in regards to gun control, at least if I've read your position correctly. "The majority of people support stricter gun laws, but since I don't agree with them, it shouldn't be done." I agree that the deeper issue is with society...but why on Earth is that mutually exclusive or in any way an argument against gun legislation reform? If anything, it's an argument FOR gun reform, since by your own words, your society can't be trusted with firearms at this point in time.


I don't believe guns need to be regulated any more than they are today.  We should close loopholes that allow guns to be purchased without criminal background checks,

...which in and of itself is increasing regulation, but whatever.

 
but I feel we need to spend some time in collective cultural meditation, until we understand that we're one people.  In spite of our differences, we are America (sorry non-USA people, I'm speaking from my view of my nation).  Until we stop hating each other, it doesn't matter what weapons we limit.  We're always going to find a way to kill each other.

Naivete at its height. I'm sorry, but it is. It's a lovely idea and I wish the world worked that way, but do you honestly think that Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia and all the others in the last four or five years wouldn't have happened if the killers had meditated a little? They did. They meditated and considered their own thoughts and the actions they wanted to take, and decided that shooting people was a good idea. The statistics show that you are wrong. More legislation and regulation == less gun crime. And I'm not in the business of saying "people, we should all meditate and realise that we are one people!" I'm in the business of saving lives, and gun regulation will do just that. It's proven that more gun laws results in less gun crime. It's common sense. Guns need to be regulated, since they are DANGEROUS. If you legalised drugs, for example, would you just say "Ah, everybody take what you want!" No! You'd regulate it to minimise the amount of people hurt by its new ready availability because drugs are DANGEROUS. Same with guns. Anything as dangerous as a firearm should be regulated to try and stop it from being used to hurt people.

I am a "democrat" though I pretty much identify independent, I'm not a gun owner, and I never intend on being a gun owner. 

So what? No offence, but it doesn't matter since you're provably wrong. Yes, society needs to change, but so too does gun legislation or people WILL continue to die. How exactly do you intend to enforce this "everybody meditate and realise we're all one?" How do you intend to ensure that they come to that conclusion? How do you intend to make sure that nobody meditates and comes out with the prejudices they went in with? How do you intend to ensure that those people don't then go out and commit mass shootings, just like they would have beforehand? How do you intend to legislate this meditation? How do you intend to get everybody to do it, especially if they say "nah, don't feel like it?" Will you force them? It's a lovely idea and American society DOES need to change, but it's just not a practical solution. What you're advocating, besides closing a couple of loopholes, is doing diddly squat to prevent the next mass shooting. Meditation on a national level will simply not work due to the diverse and inherently bias nature of humanity. The only thing the government can do while it's trying to push society forwards - at a slow pace, since societal change will only ever come gradually - is enforce laws that make people safer. And gun control laws MAKE. PEOPLE. SAFER. The statistics PROVE this. Your idea is lovely and I wish it would work in practice, but in the real world, it would never have the effect you hope it would. But go ahead, try, and I hope I'm proven wrong. In the meantime, however, I'll be over here in a country where there isn't a gun for every resident and where mass shootings happen once in a blue moon as opposed to once every few months because guns are rarer.

Culturally speaking, the UK and the USA aren't really that different. There are a few key differences, of course - the UK populace is, as a rule, generally less religious than the USA's, we don't tend to - as people - get bent out of shape over race or sexuality as much and a few other differences, but when it comes down to it, we're actually extremely similar. And yet we have - proportionally speaking - MUCH less gun crime than you do. Why is that? Oh yeah. Less guns and more gun control laws. You can still GET them legally, it's just relatively difficult.

So....yeah. Your idea of cultural meditation is lovely in theory, but in practice? It wouldn't really do a damn thing. I'm sorry, I really am. But the only real way to curb gun violence with immediate effect, at least, is more gun regulation. It really is that simple.

Offline Cassandra LeMay

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #182 on: October 14, 2015, 08:14:24 AM »
First off, it's kinda vague by what it means by "militia;" does it refer to the national guard or the army, or each states independent militia? Either way, not important. The reason I bring this up is because:
...
IN THE CONSTITUTION, it says "REGULATED militia," which suggests some government oversight as to who gets the firearm and who doesn't. It doesn't say "GUNS FOR EVERYBODY, NO EXCEPTIONS!"
For answers to this, look no further than the US Constitution itself, specifically Articel 1, Section 8 that lists the powers of Congress. Some government oversight is not just suggested by the Second Ammendment, it is provided for in the Constitution:
Quote
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Army and Navy are listed seperatly. They are different from the Militia.

What the Militia is intended for is also stated.

Congress is given the power to "organize, arm, and discipline" the Militia.

As long as anyone claims their rights to bear arms is grounded in the provisions of the Second Amendment they should accept that anything relating to this mysterious "Militia" can be regulated by Congress. That is not against the Constitution. It is a power granted Congress by the very same Constitution the Second Amendment is rooted in.

Online Vergil Tanner

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #183 on: October 14, 2015, 08:26:58 AM »
Ah, Danke Schon; I've never read the constitution in its entirety (Not being American, why would I?), only bits and pieces as they become relevant to conversation, so thank you for clearing that up for me. ^_^

So yes, the Constitution allows for Congress to regulate certain things...gun ownership presumably being one of them. And honestly, it's just common sense to make sure that guns are only going to people who can be trusted with them. It boggles my mind that so many people seem to be in favour of giving guns to everybody indiscriminately. But then, maybe that's an American thing; one of the few differences between the UK and the USA is that the UK has never had particularly widespread firearm ownership, so we just don't "get" American's seeming fascination with guns, haha.

Offline Cassandra LeMay

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #184 on: October 14, 2015, 11:07:29 AM »
What follows is a bit of a rant, but the longer I follow this debate, the more I feel I need to get this off my chest. Feel free to ignore what follows as much as you like, please. I'll put this in a spoiler because it really may be just a personal rant in the context of the larger debate.

Ranty rant
There are basically two points to what's on my mind about gun rights (aside from statistics and other pesky little facts): The Second Amendment and the Deflecting Arguments, for lack of a better description.

Why on Earth would anyone argue that the Second Amendment gives anyone the right to bear arms unless they are part of a militia overseen by congressional legislation? When did people start to interpret this as an individual right when it is pretty much written as a collective right? I admit that I have yet to read up on the relavant court decisions, but - to the best of my knowledge - it really kicked off under Bush #2 and his Attorney General, John Ashcroft, i.e. just a little after the turn of the century. Thing is, Bush led Gore among NRA members by 25 points, far as I recall something I read, but correct me if I'm wrong. The NRA spent a whole lot of money in support of Bush. Without NRA money those few hundred folks in Florida might not have mattered at all and Gore could have carried the day. (Sure, other interest groups spent a whole lot of money too, but that doesn't mean the NRA didn't.)

So the NRA supported Bush. Big deal. They represent hunters, sports shooters, and people who just want the right to keep a gun in their nightstand to defend their home, right? No. Actually No! The NRA gets a ton of money from the arms industry. Not just through advertisments in NRA publications, but also through sponsorship for NRA events and programs and even more direct contributions. And what does the arms industry want? Selling guns. The more guns the better. And that is what the NRA lobbies for. Anything that might make it more difficult for gun dealers to sell more guns can - and will - be torpedoed by the NRA and its lobby groups on the Hill.

Now, I am not saying that everyone who argues against gun restrictions is in the pocket of the arms industry, but if you find yourself repeating an argument initially advanced by the NRA, ask yourself Cui Bono? For whose benefit? If you still believe in that argument that's fine with me. I'll probably disagree, but that sure is better than parroting a sales pitch.

The other thing that gets my knickers in a twist are "yes, but anything but gun control" arguments that seem to answer the question if 2+2 equals 4 with the counterpoint that we should first look up in a dictionary what the precise meaning of "equals" is.

Lets conjure up an analogy.

Let's say people die in traffic accidents. Let us further assume that the faster a car travels, the more likely it is that an accident it is involved in will lead to deadly results. Not really an unlikely scenario, is it?

So... along comes someone who advocates speed limits. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? Fast cars kill more people than slow cars, so lets see to it that cars don't race down the road at 150mph?

No. Actually, lets see to it that people with bad eyesight don't get a driver's license. Doesn't matter that they don't cause any more accidents than other people, as long as they wear their glasses. They are the real problem. Only that they are not. And even if they were, introducing and enforcing speed limits would bring the number of accidents they cause down. Even better ... what if we require those people to wear glasses and have speed limits? What? Two for the price of one? Oh my gosh.

Or how about we just say that the speed of cars is not the problem? Maybe it's the mindset of the drivers? Maybe we just need a different driving culture. We just need to all become better drivers and the speed of the cars will not matter. Why on Earth can't you have both, for Pete's sake? Speed limits and better driver responsibility? Maybe you'll fail in changing the culture, maybe you'll succeed, but in the meantime people will die in situations that could have been avoided if you had introduced - and enforced - speed limits.

So here are my modest proposals for gun control:

Bring back the Assault Weapons Ban. Does anyone who wants to shoot as a sport, hunt deer, or defend their home really need a rifle with a bayonet mount, and a flash suppressor, and a grenade launcher mount? Really, pick one. Seriously. Make up your mind. And if you can't chose - get three rifles, one for each option.

Require background checks for all gun sales. In most cases the background checks take only a minute or two (okay, maybe more, but as I understand these things, most of the time it's just a matter of making a call and waiting a few minutes for the reply). You wouldn't argue that people only need a driver's license if they bought their car in the US, would you? Would you exempt people from having a driver's license if the bought their car in Canada or Mexico? Probably not.

Here we might go beyond "modest proposals", but also forget about concealed carry and "stand your ground" laws. They don't work. Really, trust me. There are studies that prove it. Honestly. Good guys with guns don't stop bad guys with guns, unless we are talking law enforcement officers here when it comes to the good guys. The only thing those laws help are gun sales. Here's something that might really help change culture - because most people are not John Rambo or John Wayne, no matter how much they would like to believe they are. Maybe no longer telling them otherwise might be a good idea.

But even if you just go for the AWB and more background checks, it will be a step in the right direction. Changing culture and attitudes sometimes needs regulations. Many people disliked seatbelts, but where they became mandatory they helped safe lives and nowadys people accept them pretty much as normal.

Requiring seat belts didn't take peoples cars away, but they did save lives. Why can't people look at gun laws the same way?

Offline eBadger

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #185 on: October 14, 2015, 01:06:32 PM »
What follows is a bit of a rant, but the longer I follow this debate, the more I feel I need to get this off my chest.

Fair enough!   ;)

Why on Earth would anyone argue that the Second Amendment gives anyone the right to bear arms unless they are part of a militia overseen by congressional legislation? When did people start to interpret this as an individual right when it is pretty much written as a collective right?

From the start, pretty much. 

James Madison, Federalist 46, 1788: "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes."

-Being armed is a defense against tyranny; if Europeans were able to have weapons, that alone might end tyranny. 

Coxe, 1792: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"

-The right to bear arms is a protection against tyranny by our own military. 

Tucker, 1803: "Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game...the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game."

-Restrictions on weapons in England enable religious and social discrimination, and any restriction at all is a threat to liberty. 

Remember the context of the Constitution.  The people who fought at Lexington and Concord, the first conflicts of the Revolution, were militias, organized and trained by themselves, of their own will, to counter the current government.  It is exactly these non-government-controlled individuals that the text refers to, not our current preconceptions of a professional state national guard. 

The Constitution is a living document, though, and new interpretations are valid and good (it never foresaw nuclear weapons, automobiles, or the internet, after all).  We must interpret the 2nd in light of our modern situation and values.  But claiming that the amendment wasn't originally intended to protect the individual right to own a personal firearm is ridiculous.  As is the entire notion that the amendment is about hunting, btw. 

The NRA gets a ton of money from the arms industry. Not just through advertisments in NRA publications, but also through sponsorship for NRA events and programs and even more direct contributions. And what does the arms industry want? Selling guns.

And the other side is dominated by moralistic groups who dismiss others' rights as irrelevant in the face of their own comfort and protection.  They're better at the sympathy vote, but neither side of the debate really thrills me. 

Bring back the Assault Weapons Ban.

I've already addressed this ad nauseam elsewhere, but the AWB was a horrid piece of legislation that was strictly based on what weapons look scary.  Numbers show that such weapons are among the least likely to kill anyone, it was easily bypassed, had little effect and it distracted from more productive conversations.  If you want to ban a gun type, ban pistols (those are used for 80% of killings, while assault weapons are used for 2%; since 1934 there have been two deaths in the US by legally licensed automatic weapons). 
« Last Edit: October 14, 2015, 01:13:08 PM by eBadger »

Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #186 on: October 14, 2015, 05:32:48 PM »

I've already addressed this ad nauseam elsewhere, but the AWB was a horrid piece of legislation that was strictly based on what weapons look scary.  Numbers show that such weapons are among the least likely to kill anyone, it was easily bypassed, had little effect and it distracted from more productive conversations.  If you want to ban a gun type, ban pistols (those are used for 80% of killings, while assault weapons are used for 2%; since 1934 there have been two deaths in the US by legally licensed automatic weapons).

Yea, whenever I see 'bring back the AWB' as part of an argument I immediately start losing any attention I have for that person's argument, because it one sentence it tells me 'Here is someone that's read lots of opinion pieces from gun control activists but has no actual concept of how firearms work or function'.

The NRA and the GOP are morons, but they're always going to get rabid buy in from a large section of the population because of sentiments exactly like that. "This gun scares me, you shouldn't be allowed to have it". It's like waving a flag saying 'this is an outsider trying to exercise influence on us'.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2015, 05:34:14 PM by Tairis »

Online Vergil Tanner

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #187 on: October 14, 2015, 07:37:30 PM »
-Restrictions on weapons in England enable religious and social discrimination, and any restriction at all is a threat to liberty.

That did happen, but we're in the 21st century now. America needs to stop living in the past.

But claiming that the amendment wasn't originally intended to protect the individual right to own a personal firearm is ridiculous.  As is the entire notion that the amendment is about hunting, btw.

Well, except that it never - to my knowledge - states as such. It's always talking about a regulated militia as opposed to "everybody gets a gun." Where exactly does it say that the ordinary person can have a gun unsupervised and unregulated?


And the other side is dominated by moralistic groups who dismiss others' rights as irrelevant in the face of their own comfort and protection.

My apologies, but that is complete poppycock. Your "rights" end at other peoples well being. You can have a gun, but as soon as you fire it at somebody who didn't warrant being fired at, you are not allowed that gun anymore since you've used it to violate somebody elses rights. NOBODY is saying "take away your firearm," (at least, nobody who might actually make a difference in this matter), but we ARE saying "Hey, maybe we should regulate the types of guns on sale and who gets them in order to protect people from having their right not to get shot violated." Why does your "right" to unrestricted, unregulated gun ownership trump somebody elses right not to get shot in the face at school by some maniac who bought a gun without any form of restriction?


Numbers show that such weapons are among the least likely to kill anyone, it was easily bypassed, had little effect and it distracted from more productive conversations.  If you want to ban a gun type, ban pistols (those are used for 80% of killings, while assault weapons are used for 2%; since 1934 there have been two deaths in the US by legally licensed automatic weapons). 

...so? It's all about reducing the capacity to kill people. If nobody uses assault weapons, then what's the harm in banning it? But the whole thing is that banning a certain type of weapon is only one aspect of it...more than just a blanket ban on certain weapons should be implemented. And who cares if only a certain amount of people have been killed by them? There are still weapons you don't want in the public domain (I personally would feel rather distressed if I could legally go down to the corner shop and pick up an RPG without so much as a background or ID check).
I think the following should be implemented:

- Automatic weapons of any kind - machine pistols, assault rifles, etc etc - should be banned. You don't need them for hunting or defending the home since an AW is overkill, and if a psycho DOES get ahold of it....that's a whole lot more than ten people killed.
- Explosive weapons are banned (like RPG's, grenades, grenade launchers, etc etc). Duh.
- Magazine size is capped. If you can only hold - for example - eight bullets in the magazine, that's at most 8 people dead before you have to reload and people have a chance to get away.
- Calibre, bullet size/type and "stopping power" is capped. You likely won't need a Desert Eagle with armour penetrating rounds to defend your house from a burglary, so why have it?
- Universal background check. Duh.
- Close the "Gun show loophole."
- More "Gun Free Zones," like at public schools and hospitals, for example.
- A limited access to mental health records, just in case there's something in there that might be relevant (the minority of mental health issues lead to violence, but there are still conditions that can motivate violence, so you should at least be on the lookout for - for example - paranoid delusions or violent psychosis).
- I personally think that there should be a gunowners licence that is linked to a database and they have to follow certain rules or get the guns confiscated (EG, if you get caught taking a gun into a gun free zone, you get a certain amount of "points" on your licence, and after a set amount, your licence gets suspended and your guns get taken away until the suspension is over. Break the rules, don't be allowed to have the gun. That's fair, I think.).

But that's just me.

Offline Aethereal

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #188 on: October 14, 2015, 08:51:24 PM »
Quote
Does anyone who wants to shoot as a sport, hunt deer, or defend their home really need a rifle with a bayonet mount, and a flash suppressor, and a grenade launcher mount?
      Just a quick note - flash suppressors don't really do all that much where the overall noticeability of the firearm is concerned, but they certainly reduce the "Ow, fuck, my eyes!" factor by quite significant extent. I've never understood that particular regulation...

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #189 on: October 14, 2015, 09:02:27 PM »
Question:  does anyone oppose the idea of having gun show sales follow the same rules as gun store sales?


Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #190 on: October 14, 2015, 10:17:11 PM »
Question:  does anyone oppose the idea of having gun show sales follow the same rules as gun store sales?

Not really, but at the same time that one is more of a talking point than an actual problem. If you read up on most the mass shooters they acquired their guns either through normal channels or from somewhere that they shouldn't have had access to (family gun collection, friend, etc). The thing is closing the 'gunshow loophole' isn't going to effect private sales outside a gunshow, which aren't going to go through that process anyways.

Honestly I think the best solution would be an actual, functional background check system at the federal level so we don't have holes and gaps all over the place that people slip through. Part of that would also involve checking people's medical records on a limited basis for any mental issues that would preclude ownership of a firearm.

Problem is, that would require actual compromise which doesn't seem to exist in American politics. You're either going to get the NRA types that will stomp their feet and go 'they're taken meh guuns!' or you have people like Vergil above whose argument is 'You're not allowed to have this random list of things because I don't know what they do and they scare me'.

Basically its politicians in the pocket of industrial lobbies and shit stiring special interest groups vs polticians pandering to the vote of 'This is the 21st century and since I dont like guns nobody should have them' types.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2015, 10:18:46 PM by Tairis »

Offline Cassandra LeMay

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #191 on: October 15, 2015, 03:49:10 AM »
Yea, whenever I see 'bring back the AWB' as part of an argument I immediately start losing any attention I have for that person's argument, because it one sentence it tells me 'Here is someone that's read lots of opinion pieces from gun control activists but has no actual concept of how firearms work or function'.
Granted, I am not familiar with all the minute details of the AWB or state weapon bans, but I was under the impression that many of those laws did/do not just restrict the sale of certain firearms, but also of so-called high-capacity magazines.

Would you agree with restrictions on magazine capacity and/or support the statement that recreational firearm use and home defence can be done with weapons holding no more than 10 bullets? We can argue about the number 10 and if 8 or 12 or whatnot might be a better limit, but I really don't see why any private citizen should need something like (for example) the 50 or 100 round magazines Callico seems so fond of, or rifles marketed as hunting weapons with magazines holding 30 bullets.

And while so-called assault weapons may only play a small part in actual gun crime, I would still say restrictions on certain types of weapons can be useful in changing attitudes, work the way seatbelt regulation did. Once people get used to it, their attitudes might change, without doing any real harm.

Online Vergil Tanner

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #192 on: October 15, 2015, 04:54:14 AM »
or you have people like Vergil above whose argument is 'You're not allowed to have this random list of things because I don't know what they do and they scare me'.

Bullshit, that isn't what I said.

I'm not saying "they're scary, so you're not allowed to have them," otherwise I would be saying that you're not allowed ANY guns, since ALL guns are scary in the wrong hands. Hell, even in the right hands, they can still be fucking terrifying...a knife, you have a good chance of defending against if you know even vaguely what you're doing in a fight. A gun? It doesn't matter how good you are with your fists, you're never gonna be faster than a bullet.

Most guncrime is committed with pistols because they're easily concealed, and there's not really a way to deal with it unless you want to also say "you're not allowed a concealed weapon in the streets" or "you aren't allowed ANY firearms...." neither of which Americans would like. So, the next best thing is limiting the damage that they could do with these weapons. If you ban assault weapons, then you're limiting what these shooters have access to, AND making it a bit more difficult for actual criminals to get ahold of these guns because there aren't as many around. They'd have to buy them from specific arms dealers and black market channels rather than just breaking in to somebodies house and pinching it. The fact is, at the moment - to the best of my knowledge - a shooter COULD pick up an AW, step into a busy street and fire off 30 bullets before anybody knew what was going on. That's thirty potential deaths. Whereas if they only had access to a standard pistol, they would maybe get four or five shots off, if that. And are you honestly saying that the public should be allowed to buy grenade launchers and RPG's? Really? Because that was in my list as well, and I just assumed that not giving the public access to highly destructive anti-armour explosive weapons was just common fucking sense, if only because with one of those, you could easily level half a city block before anybody could stop you. Plus, as Cassandra says, since nobody really uses them anyway, banning them wouldn't do much and would help change attitutdes towards gun laws a little bit to make more impactful regulations easier to swallow in the future. And really, who needs an assault rifle or a grenade launcher to go hunting or defend their house, hmm?

I would appreciate it if you didn't strawman my position as "I don't know what they do and they look scary so I want to take away ya guns." I know exactly what the fuck these things do, I know how dangerous and scary ALL guns are, I just think that certain types are overkill for what they're given to the public for and COULD cause huge levels of death and damage if they fell into the wrong hands...so they should be banned because they're just more dangerous on an individual level than pistols. Automatic weapons also includes machine pistols, by the way. What would have happened, do you think, if the Virginia shooter had had a machine pistol instead, hm?

And I also agree further with Cassandra; are you saying that you're against limited magazine size and whatnot? Because that, too, is a common sense gun law in my mind.

Offline Ryven

  • Keeper of Cowthulhu | Pure Awesomenesity
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2008
  • Location: The farthest reaches of your dreams
  • Gender: Male
  • The night's pleasure follows in my footsteps
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #193 on: October 15, 2015, 05:26:04 AM »
I agree about 90% with the heavier restriction of gun control laws.  I do have a question about how more gun-free zones will be enforced.  In theory, I love the idea, but in practice, nothing is stopping someone with a gun from going to one of these zones and opening fire on those who are actually obeying the law.

My other concern is the stricter background checks with regard to mental illness.  Diagnosing mental illness isn't a concrete science.  Many shooters have 'symptoms' or psychological aspects in common with people who don't go out and shoot people.  I know several people who are mentally ill and who have access to fire arms who have not shot anyone, myself included.  I guess the problem is where the line is drawn and what constitutes action during one of these stricter background checks.

Online Vergil Tanner

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #194 on: October 15, 2015, 05:59:34 AM »
I agree about 90% with the heavier restriction of gun control laws.  I do have a question about how more gun-free zones will be enforced.  In theory, I love the idea, but in practice, nothing is stopping someone with a gun from going to one of these zones and opening fire on those who are actually obeying the law.

Well, at the moment, no...though only 13% of gun crime happens in gun free zones, so they're apparently safer (most of the time).
But I do have an idea on how to enforce GFZ's; if the GFZ is just a school or a hospital or a library or something like that - a public place that has just instituted a "No Guns" policy - you could easily have metal detectors on the way in to find the guns, like they do at airports. If the GFZ is like a specific area of town or even an entire city, just have checkpoints at the entrances to the GFZ on the roads with scanners, like they use at either end of the Channel Tunnel from France to England to look for illegal immigrants hiding in lorries (but calibrated to look for guns or something). Just vague ideas, but there are ways to enforce them. Obviously, anybody who is determined to smuggle a gun in will find a way to get it through, but it will stop the majority of them.

My other concern is the stricter background checks with regard to mental illness.  Diagnosing mental illness isn't a concrete science.  Many shooters have 'symptoms' or psychological aspects in common with people who don't go out and shoot people.  I know several people who are mentally ill and who have access to fire arms who have not shot anyone, myself included.  I guess the problem is where the line is drawn and what constitutes action during one of these stricter background checks.

See my first post for that: I agree completely with your concerns, and it would have to be handled in the right way. Let's see if I can find it...

Quote
HOWEVER, if you apply for a gun owners licence (which I think would be the easiest way to do it; create a universal licence that everybody has to get approved before buying a firearm, and then having that be run through a system every time you buy a gun....also have it expire, so you have to re-apply periodically, AND give it certain conditions so that if - for example - you commit assault or rape or something like that, you are legally required to hand over all your guns, which they would know exactly what you have because it would be kept on your Gun Owners file), you automatically opt in to a background check....which includes having to declare if you're currently in therapy or have mental health issues. If you say yes, they go to your doctor and have a list of "conditions" and "diagnoses" (for example, the list could include paranoid schizophrenia, periodic hallucinations, clinically psychotic, whether you could be considered a psycho or sociopath (NOT saying that those two are mental illnesses, just that they could be on that sort of "checklist")) and the therapist/doctor would say "Yes" or "no." They wouldn't have to say what condition on that list you have, just whether what you have IS on the list. They could also ask your therapists and doctors if, in their professional opinion, whether you can be trusted with a firearm. That way, the government doesn't know what you have or to what severity, but can still get experts advice on whether your "problems" could lead to violence in some way. Because although most sufferers of mental illnesses and issues are law abiding, ordinary people, there ARE those whose problems can cause violence, whether malicious or not, and this would at least go some way to stopping those select few from getting firearms, y'know?

In fact, why go with that roundabout way? Just make part of the application process for a licence a mandatory psyche eval, so a group of experts conduct interviews and tests and scans and whatnot to figure out if they think that you are "stable" enough to be trusted with a firearm. That way, your health issues aren't dragged into the light, and the government can at least do something to try and cut out the people who might not have committed a crime, but are still too...imbalanced...to be safely given a gun. Or maybe do both, just to be sure.


Not perfect, I'll admit, but it could go some way to keeping guns out of the hands of those who are dangerously unstable. Some would undoubtedly slip through the cracks, but it would catch the majority of the "risks," I think. You're right; it isn't an exact science, and some would slip through...but it's better than doing nothing, right?
« Last Edit: October 15, 2015, 06:01:15 AM by Vergil Tanner »

Offline Caehlim

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #195 on: October 15, 2015, 06:19:37 AM »
Not perfect, I'll admit, but it could go some way to keeping guns out of the hands of those who are dangerously unstable. Some would undoubtedly slip through the cracks, but it would catch the majority of the "risks," I think. You're right; it isn't an exact science, and some would slip through...but it's better than doing nothing, right?

I don't think that's necessary. Australia doesn't do any of that.

Online Vergil Tanner

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #196 on: October 15, 2015, 06:59:05 AM »
Oh no, it's not necessary, but I still think that sort of evaluation should be part of a background check somehow. The most important thing is, however, to limit what types of guns are available and make sure that everybody who buys them goes through a BGC. And make giving your guns to somebody else without approval punishable by law; that way, the shooters can't just get a family firearm, since the owners would keep a closer eye on them to avoid being punished. As I say; my ideas aren't planned out, they're just quick brainstorms.

Offline Mithlomwen

  • ~ E's resident kilt inspector ~ ~ Atropos ~
  • Goddess
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2008
  • Location: Somewhere between the dark and the light...
  • Gender: Female
  • ~ Thunder only happens when it's raining.... ~
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #197 on: October 15, 2015, 07:58:42 AM »
Bullshit, that isn't what I said.

Virgil, if you are going to debate in this forum, try to keep things civil please.  You can make your points without without resorting to condescending and uncivil remarks. 

Things like the above quote are completely uncalled for.  Please stop. 

Online Vergil Tanner

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #198 on: October 15, 2015, 08:09:14 AM »
My apologies; I didn't intend it that way...I just tend to have a less "strict" rule on swearing and I tend to use language like that when I want to "punctuate" something. I'll keep an eye on my language from now on. I didn't intend for it to be construed as "uncivil."

Offline Mithlomwen

  • ~ E's resident kilt inspector ~ ~ Atropos ~
  • Goddess
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2008
  • Location: Somewhere between the dark and the light...
  • Gender: Female
  • ~ Thunder only happens when it's raining.... ~
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #199 on: October 15, 2015, 08:23:40 AM »
My apologies; I didn't intend it that way...I just tend to have a less "strict" rule on swearing and I tend to use language like that when I want to "punctuate" something. I'll keep an eye on my language from now on. I didn't intend for it to be construed as "uncivil."

It isn't so much your language as it is your tone.