cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,595
Likes: 2,069
|
Post by cherry68 on Feb 23, 2018 17:04:18 GMT
This thread is very divided on this issue, but for a second, let's make the focus only about making it more difficult for mentally ill people to legally purchase guns, which to me is a perfectly rational position to have. Is there anyone in this thread who is opposed to this? Anyone? Obviously not. I think the biggest issue is identifying mentally ill people. Apparently USA have a quite high number of dangerous people who aren't followed by mental health services. Maybe sanitary system is to blame, I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Feb 23, 2018 17:23:45 GMT
This thread is very divided on this issue, but for a second, let's make the focus only about making it more difficult for mentally ill people to legally purchase guns, which to me is a perfectly rational position to have. Is there anyone in this thread who is opposed to this? Anyone? anyone who opposes this is a moron. Seriously. A few months ago, I was waiting for a subway, this 25ish male walked up to me and said, I think I'll kill her today or should I kill myself. I freaked the f out. Just now, a guy was yelling nonsense b.s . He was obviously mentally ill. I live dtla and deal with this on a daily. These people are legall y able to buy a gun but they should not be able too. The Republicans live in a bubble. They don't deal with these type of people in a dauly so they don't give a fuck.that's the problem.
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Feb 23, 2018 17:26:07 GMT
This thread is very divided on this issue, but for a second, let's make the focus only about making it more difficult for mentally ill people to legally purchase guns, which to me is a perfectly rational position to have. Is there anyone in this thread who is opposed to this? Anyone? Obviously not. I think the biggest issue is identifying mentally ill people. Apparently USA have a quite high number of dangerous people who aren't followed by mental health services . Maybe sanitary system is to blame, I don't know. Then it follows that we should have stricter, more thorough background checks. Common sense. I agree that identification of mental illness is a major problem. But even those classified as mentally ill are being allowed to purchase guns. I know a woman who is bipolar who was able to purchase a gun and she even says she shouldn't have been allowed to. Next, we'll be hearing about mentally ill people being discriminated against. Well, I don't want a gun in the hands of someone like that who suddenly goes off their meds, sorry.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,595
Likes: 2,069
|
Post by cherry68 on Feb 23, 2018 17:33:54 GMT
PromNightCarrieI agree with you about not wanting mentally ill people getting a gun, even if I'm not sure bipolar people are aggressive towards the others. I think guns shouldn't be sold to drug addicted either, so a check of hairs or blood for drugs should be required too.
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Feb 23, 2018 17:53:13 GMT
PromNightCarrie I agree with you about not wanting mentally ill people getting a gun, even if I'm not sure bipolar people are aggressive towards the others. I think guns shouldn't be sold to drug addicted either, so a check of hairs or blood for drugs should be required too. Bipolar people can act impulsively if they get in an episode that is severe enough. That's why we see so many cases where someone ended up going off their meds, getting a gun and shooting themselves and their own family. The idea should be to have responsible gun ownership. People who are clinically diagnosed as something that suggests they are not of sound mind should not be able to carry.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Feb 23, 2018 17:59:14 GMT
PromNightCarrie I agree with you about not wanting mentally ill people getting a gun, even if I'm not sure bipolar people are aggressive towards the others. I think guns shouldn't be sold to drug addicted either, so a check of hairs or blood for drugs should be required too. Bipolar people can act impulsively if they get in an episode that is severe enough. That's why we see so many cases where someone ended up going off their meds, getting a gun and shooting themselves and their own family. The idea should be to have responsible gun ownership. People who are clinically diagnosed as something that suggests they are not of sound mind should not be able to carry. i know there are hippa laws but if you are prescribed meds for particular reasons, have some documented episode or see a shrink and mentioned something, you need to go into a database. Period. Part of the problem is that nobody wants to admit his/her love one is nuts so they ignore the behavior.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,553
Likes: 1,386
|
Post by Film Socialism on Mar 2, 2018 6:35:36 GMT
arm the proletariat
additionally: pro-gun control when it comes to itd
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2018 14:29:17 GMT
Maybe I'm dumb but what does this mean
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,595
Likes: 2,069
|
Post by cherry68 on Mar 2, 2018 15:45:31 GMT
Maybe I'm dumb but what does this mean I'm not sure, but I think he meant ice truck dexter.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Mar 2, 2018 23:46:43 GMT
arm the proletariat additionally: pro-gun control when it comes to itd How about we just shoot the commies instead.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Mar 2, 2018 23:48:12 GMT
This thread is very divided on this issue, but for a second, let's make the focus only about making it more difficult for mentally ill people to legally purchase guns, which to me is a perfectly rational position to have. Is there anyone in this thread who is opposed to this? Anyone? You're being very bigoted against the whackjobs Carrie.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,553
Likes: 1,386
|
Post by Film Socialism on Mar 3, 2018 1:43:12 GMT
arm the proletariat additionally: pro-gun control when it comes to itd How about we just shoot the commies instead. come have a lick at it you dunce
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Mar 3, 2018 2:04:49 GMT
arm the proletariat additionally: pro-gun control when it comes to itd How about we just shoot the commies instead. There's a better method...
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Mar 3, 2018 2:33:20 GMT
How about we just shoot the commies instead. There's a better method... Ah Augusto. So misunderstood.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Mar 3, 2018 2:34:10 GMT
How about we just shoot the commies instead. come have a lick at it you dunce It's the commies that are the dunces.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Mar 12, 2018 11:06:52 GMT
I am late to the party here, but I'll put in my 3 cents.
The words "gun control" has a negative meaning to it for some circles. I do support reforming our gun laws and making it harder to get semi-automatic weapons. I am not really in the camp of "banning" guns.
I do support universal background checks, meaning every time you receive/purchase a new gun, you have to get a background check. Gun shows and private sales cannot skirt the system in my books.
I support fixing the background check system where states have to report to the federal government a person's criminal history and mental health history.
I support raising the age to purchase a semi-automatic weapon to the age of 21 or even 24, AND require they get a mental health exam before they are legally allowed to get their first semi-automatic weapon.
I support requiring people to take a training course and a mental health exam before they get their first gun.
I oppose bum stocks or any other methods to alter a gun's ammunition count.
I support gun registration too.
That's it for me when it comes to gun regulations.
Here's the problem with the debate: (1) the NRA. The NRA can talk all they want about how they oppose "crazy people" from owning guns, but they have shown little interest in supporting legislation which would fix the issue.(2) The far-right in this country loves to say "it's about the lunatic, not the gun", but they do not support increasing funding for people suffering from mental illnesses or giving them access to health-care. (3) Some people take an extreme interpretation of the 2nd amendment. No court has ever ruled that the government, state or federal, cannot regulate the gun industry. We of course can, and should. If there are guns out there, that we as a society feel are too dangerous for public consumption, then we should consider banning them or at least require heavy regulations to purchase one.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Mar 12, 2018 11:19:53 GMT
Against. I'm not for doing nothing about it, but people comparing their gun-less countries to the U.S. sounds silly to me, it's like they think they can tell us how to create a more ideal society. Also... before the internet-sensitive attacks me... (or her rather), this is probably the only time I've ever agreed with Tomi Lahren: "@tomilahren Can the Left let the families grieve for even 24 hours before they push their anti-gun and anti-gunowner agenda? My goodness. This isn't about a gun it's about another lunatic" It has much less to do with guns than it has to do with certain luney people. I think people-regulating is one of the most underrated talking points in the media. The fact that it's never talked, yet guns always get the blame makes me wonder why people ignore the real source of the issue. Don't agree. We should be looking at what other countries do when it comes to gun regulations. I am not saying we should do exactly what they do, but it's pretty accurate that mass shootings and homicides by guns do go down with more gun regulations. As for agreeing with the ignorant, Trump-loving Tomi, I would say, I don't agree either. It's about the GUN and the PERSON. Both are used in the crime, therefore, both should be looked at. And no, the left is not pushing an "anti-gun" or "anti-gun owner" agenda. Most Americans do not take her extreme views on guns, and feel that most people should be allowed to own guns for hunting and self-protection. The issue here is that the kids going to school should be safe when their parents drop them off. It should be safe to go to a concert or movie theater and not have to deal with bullets being shot every where. Public safety is a fundamental right.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Mar 12, 2018 15:16:54 GMT
Brother FeaseYou do know semi-automatic just means when you pull the trigger one bullet comes out. Basically any pistol. Why? If the legal age to vote and join the military is 18 then you're an adult then why make a difference. That's a nonsensical point. As long as it's in the 2nd Amendment then this would be highly illegal. It's bump stocks and altering ammunition counts is not what they do. It's basically alters how you use a gun and effectively turns it into an automatic. Completely goes against the spirit of the 2nd Amendment.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,595
Likes: 2,069
|
Post by cherry68 on Mar 12, 2018 15:50:33 GMT
IceTruckDexter said He might have a point here, as the legal age to drink alcohol in the US is 21. On the other side, the school shooting with the highest number of deaths was the Virginia Tech, where the shooter killed 32 people and injured 17, and the perpetrator was 23, using a Walther and a Glock pistols. Again, raising the age or banning assault weapons wouldn't have saved their lives.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Mar 12, 2018 23:03:43 GMT
IceTruckDexter said He might have a point here, as the legal age to drink alcohol in the US is 21. Another stupid law. They're either adults at 18 or they're not and they won't change that because the Democrats need the young voters and they need these kids to sign up for the military.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Mar 13, 2018 0:31:11 GMT
IceTruckDexter said He might have a point here, as the legal age to drink alcohol in the US is 21. Another stupid law. They're either adults at 18 or they're not and they won't change that because the Democrats need the young voters and they need these kids to sign up for the military. You have to be 21 to drink in this country, and 25 to rent a car. If you want to own a gun which carries more than 12 bullets at a time, you should be permitted at an age where you're really mature. That's why it should be high. I have no problem if a 18 or 20 year old, wants to own a pistol or shotgun. 21-24 range is perfectly fair. Guns don't shoot out gumdrops or rainbows. The more ammo and the lighter the weight, the easier it is to kill people. You can whine all you want about "your guns", but what about the children? What about those Americans who want to go to a movie or concert without fearing to see bullets flying all over the place?
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Mar 13, 2018 0:36:18 GMT
Brother Fease You do know semi-automatic just means when you pull the trigger one bullet comes out. Basically any pistol. Why? If the legal age to vote and join the military is 18 then you're an adult then why make a difference. That's a nonsensical point. As long as it's in the 2nd Amendment then this would be highly illegal. It's bump stocks and altering ammunition counts is not what they do. It's basically alters how you use a gun and effectively turns it into an automatic. Completely goes against the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. I don't see how it is illegal. Our courts have already established that government has the right to regulate the gun industry. The second amendment says nothing about training courses or taking a medical health exam or owning a weapon which carries 40 bullets without re-loading. This is just idiotic statements coming from the right-wing gun nuts. If your retorts are "well it's against the 2nd amendment," then you need to establish how they are unconstitutional. This is just like the right talking about how we're a christian nation without any evidence.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Mar 13, 2018 1:49:25 GMT
Another stupid law. They're either adults at 18 or they're not and they won't change that because the Democrats need the young voters and they need these kids to sign up for the military. You have to be 21 to drink in this country, and 25 to rent a car. If you want to own a gun which carries more than 12 bullets at a time, you should be permitted at an age where you're really mature. That's why it should be high. I have no problem if a 18 or 20 year old, wants to own a pistol or shotgun. 21-24 range is perfectly fair. Guns don't shoot out gumdrops or rainbows. The more ammo and the lighter the weight, the easier it is to kill people. You can whine all you want about "your guns", but what about the children? What about those Americans who want to go to a movie or concert without fearing to see bullets flying all over the place? You've literally just made no point. A pistol does the exact same thing as an AR-15. If they're not mature yet then they shouldn't have it but then they're not mature enough to join the military or have a vote. What about the children? A million children could die and it still won't change the principle of the matter. The 2nd Amendment isn't for hunting or even personal safety. It's there to fight off a tyrannical government or invading force.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Mar 13, 2018 1:54:58 GMT
Brother Fease You do know semi-automatic just means when you pull the trigger one bullet comes out. Basically any pistol. Why? If the legal age to vote and join the military is 18 then you're an adult then why make a difference. That's a nonsensical point. As long as it's in the 2nd Amendment then this would be highly illegal. It's bump stocks and altering ammunition counts is not what they do. It's basically alters how you use a gun and effectively turns it into an automatic. Completely goes against the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. I don't see how it is illegal. Our courts have already established that government has the right to regulate the gun industry. The second amendment says nothing about training courses or taking a medical health exam or owning a weapon which carries 40 bullets without re-loading. This is just idiotic statements coming from the right-wing gun nuts. If your retorts are "well it's against the 2nd amendment," then you need to establish how they are unconstitutional. This is just like the right talking about how we're a christian nation without any evidence. It would be illegal because since the 2nd Amendment is considered a human right in the States, a psychological evaluation before obtaining a gun would be considered guilty until proven innocent. That's not due process. Also secondly it's not like the right talking about it being a Christian nation at all. The Right is constitutionally wrong on that matter and the Left is constitutionally wrong on guns. Also for future reference, I'm not American and I seem to know more about it than you do.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Mar 13, 2018 3:46:22 GMT
If you have mental health issues, that can be verified then you should not have a gun... period. I take public transportation and there are tons walk pass people every day who has some sort of mental health issues. There is no way they should have a gun.
|
|