Gun Violence

There’s a lot to think about here. I broadly agree that more modest gun control efforts won’t stop mass shootings, though I’m not sure they won’t be moderately effective and make the world a safer place. I agree in principle with better/easier/cheaper access to mental health care, but in the case of individuals who may commit acts like this, I’m not sure that better access is going to make much of a difference. Then, we’re talking about more coercive measures, which raise civil liberties concerns of their own. I’m glad to see this stuff discussed, though.
 
Jaw said:
Private citizens were allowed to own cannon at the time the Second Amendment was written. Those thinking that the authors of the Bill of Rights can't have imagined the destructive force of a little semi automatic rifle should research the destruction a 24 or 32 pound cannon could do with a single shot when loaded with grapeshot or canister.

Having said that, I agree with you that the Second Amendment should be updated. We are a less respectful and respectable society than we were 250 years ago, and undeserving of the faith that those men placed in us.

The problem is that the people interested in stricter gun policies are more interested in subverting the Constitution than they are in improving it.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure I’m on board with this line of thinking. The former, anyway, the latter I’m quite in favor of.

Being acquainted with the destructive potential of cannon is one thing, but comparing the destructive potential of a single man-portable firearm from the 18th to one of the 21st century is another thing entirely.
 
goldfly said:
If the bs line of mental health was true

Why did trump overturn the Obama rule of blocking sales to mentally unfit people?
Click to expand...

In the "politics makes strange bedfellows" department, the ACLU joined the gun lobby in urging that the Obama ban be overturned. As I said in an earlier post, I see this as similar to the involuntary commitment process for the mentally ill. In both instances, it can be difficult to know who is in a position to make that decision and whether the decision is biased. That said, I always found it odd that the NRA opposed measures that would have kept people on the terrorist watch-list or no-fly-list from obtaining firearms.
 
50PoundHead said:
In the "politics makes strange bedfellows" department, the ACLU joined the gun lobby in urging that the Obama ban be overturned. As I said in an earlier post, I see this as similar to the involuntary commitment process for the mentally ill. In both instances, it can be difficult to know who is in a position to make that decision and whether the decision is biased. That said, I always found it odd that the NRA opposed measures that would have kept people on the terrorist watch-list or no-fly-list from obtaining firearms.
Click to expand...

I think I've told this story before, but there was a psychiatric doctor discussing the warning signs of these shooters several years ago.

The psychiatrist suggested making a psychiatric evaluation part of the mandatory background process to purchase a firearm.

A few minutes later he mentioned that anyone who would want one of these killing machines is obviously mentally unstable and shouldn't have access to a gun. It reminded me of the old witch tests.

Anyway, I think that's the rationale that people opposed to those types of laws are using. With the current 'win at all costs' nature of the American political system those are reasonable fears.
 
Jaw said:
I think I've told this story before, but there was a psychiatric doctor discussing the warning signs of these shooters several years ago.

The psychiatrist suggested making a psychiatric evaluation part of the mandatory background process to purchase a firearm.

A few minutes later he mentioned that anyone who would want one of these killing machines is obviously mentally unstable and shouldn't have access to a gun. It reminded me of the old witch tests.

Anyway, I think that's the rationale that people opposed to those types of laws are using. With the current 'win at all costs' nature of the American political system those are reasonable fears.
Click to expand...

I want a Glock so I can conquer penguins in Antartica. Guess I better not tell my shrink that.
 
nsacpi said:
I want a Glock so I can conquer penguins in Antartica. Guess I better not tell my shrink that.
Click to expand...

A Thriller style dance off would be more appropriate.

tumblr_lv9lb1KDrm1qip3vxo1_500.gif
 
nsacpi said:
I want a Glock so I can conquer penguins in Antartica. Guess I better not tell my shrink that.
Click to expand...

Speaking of Glock, they sell more pistols than any other manufacturer, and none of their pistols come with a manual safety. A semiautomatic pistol without a manual safety used to be unheard of, basically until Glock became popular.

I think that requiring a manual safety on all semiautomatic firearms would prevent a large number of accidental discharges, and I can't see how anyone could complain that infringes on gun rights.
 
Jaw said:
Private citizens were allowed to own cannon at the time the Second Amendment was written. Those thinking that the authors of the Bill of Rights can't have imagined the destructive force of a little semi automatic rifle should research the destruction a 24 or 32 pound cannon could do with a single shot when loaded with grapeshot or canister.

Having said that, I agree with you that the Second Amendment should be updated. We are a less respectful and respectable society than we were 250 years ago, and undeserving of the faith that those men placed in us.

The problem is that the people interested in stricter gun policies are more interested in subverting the Constitution than they are in improving it.
Click to expand...

Yes, but a cannon isn't very portable and difficult to hide. These guns are designed for one thing, kill as many people in as short a time as possible. Yes, most owners are responsible and will never kill anyone with them, but the fact that they are so many and so easy to get makes it too easy for some nutjob to kill lots of innocent people.
 
Tapate50 said:
I think you don't have a great feel for the "absolute fixation on owning any and every type of gun imaginable" terminology you used.

There are shooters and people that probably do, but I don't feel like that number is huge.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's huge either, but they're a very loud minority with political and financial backing
 
Jaw said:
Speaking of Glock, they sell more pistols than any other manufacturer, and none of their pistols come with a manual safety. A semiautomatic pistol without a manual safety used to be unheard of, basically until Glock became popular.

I think that requiring a manual safety on all semiautomatic firearms would prevent a large number of accidental discharges, and I can't see how anyone could complain that infringes on gun rights.
Click to expand...

Not having a manual safety is silly. It's like not wanting a seat belt in your car.
 
Seat belts no more than a manufacturers option beginning the late 1950's .
Safety features and emission controls were fought tooth and nail
Until government mandated


It is now a fine-able offense to be caught driving without a seat belt and emission inspections are required in many places
 
50PoundHead said:
That said, I always found it odd that the NRA opposed measures that would have kept people on the terrorist watch-list or no-fly-list from obtaining firearms.
Click to expand...

If you added potential domestic terrorists watch-list and banned them from owning guns, that would start to cut into gun sales. ?
 
Nope

I know you believe what you typed but it doesn’t make it so. The post is still there

You don’t actually have to make up quotes liar
 
57Brave said:
Seat belts no more than a manufacturers option beginning the late 1950's .
Safety features and emission controls were fought tooth and nail
Until government mandated


It is now a fine-able offense to be caught driving without a seat belt and emission inspections are required in many places
Click to expand...

Not to hijack, but the old lap belts were as bad as no seat belt and worse for those in the back seat. I've worked a lot with the school bus industry and the videos from lap belt tests show how in a collision, the passenger dummies in the back seat are jackknifed and do a face plant into the seat in front of them, which can cause massive damage to the neck. Thank goodness we've gone to the three-point belt.

This diversion has been brought to you by the school bus industry. Now, back to your regularly-scheduled program.
 
50PoundHead said:
Not to hijack, but the old lap belts were as bad as no seat belt and worse for those in the back seat. I've worked a lot with the school bus industry and the videos from lap belt tests show how in a collision, the passenger dummies in the back seat are jackknifed and do a face plant into the seat in front of them, which can cause massive damage to the neck. Thank goodness we've gone to the three-point belt.

This diversion has been brought to you by the school bus industry. Now, back to your regularly-scheduled program.
Click to expand...

It was Robert McNamara as Presdent of Ford motor Company before being Sec of Defense that led the Viet Nam "affair" that first insisted that lap belts at least be an option.
Listened to a pod cast last week where a woman spelled out the dangers of the current 3 point system. Claiming they were designed and suitable for men.
Women not so much

Now you can go back ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top