Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
randall146

USA Shootings

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

From: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/guns-and-mental-illness-how-do-you-judge-who-shouldnt-get-weapons/

While a test can't produce a diagnosis, the testing can look for signs of these types of disorders. As I mentioned earlier, if a tester is denied a gun license because the test flagged one or more of these conditions, the tester could get a pass and get a license if a psychiatrist determines they do not have the disorder. The psychiatrist would not be legally responsible for being wrong if the tester ends up committing a gun crime, but the psychiatrist would have to be certified by the state to represent the interests of the public in their diagnosis, and not the interests of the tester. 

Important point from that article that continues to be ignored. 

Quote

Substance use, which can increase the risk of crime or psychosis, can also lead to intentions to harm others. Other situations, when a person could be a risk of harm to others, are personality disorders with a high level of impulsivity or lack of remorse, such as antisocial personality disorder.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

This is a thinly veiled attempt to prohibit people from having a firearm. And why I don't agree with it. The bolded guarantees that both the tester and the licensed professional will side with the public in 99% of the cases. They have nothing to lose by saying no to gun ownership. 

Nice try. 

Siding with the public (as you put it) would result in the tester getting committed to a mental institute in most cases. And if the institution finds a doctor is misdiagnosing the people he is sending to them, he would be held accountable in a career sense. So despite your attempt to make this a conspiracy to limit gun ownership, the mental health industry wouldn't put up with such nonsense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KCitons said:

 

If I hadn't mentioned it, you wouldn't have asked him.

How many conversations have you and PS had in this thread? 

No, I wouldn't have.  I mainly did it to be a jackass too.  

As  I posted above, there is a difference between including it in a comprehensive program of gun ownership and you coming in here saying that you know what the core issue is and that is the ONLY thing we should be looking at.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Important point from that article that continues to be ignored. 

 

:lol:  

I saw that in there and figured you jump on that one.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

I still have questions about the effectiveness of screening for what is the highest % of signs or illnesses that we should be looking for.   It says right in that article what I posted before:

only 3 to 4 percent of all the violent acts committed in a given year in the U.S. are committed by people who have been diagnosed with commonly cited mental illness of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or depression.   

 

I think if it's part of a comprehensive tool of things we should be doing, but I just can't get on board with KC's reasoning that the mental illness side should be the only thing we focus on, due to the stat above and other concerns that I have raised.  

Yes, I've never agreed with him that it's all we need. It will help the gun issue. But so will other things we can be doing.

This part of the solution also has other benefits, given most people with mental disorders don't seek diagnosis or treatment on their own. This won't make all of them get tests, see a doctor, and/or get treatment, but it would increase the number of those getting diagnosed and treatment. Which is also why I like KC's mental health tax, as it could to help these newly diagnosed patients. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Important point from that article that continues to be ignored. 

 

I think substance abuse should be part of the gun testing too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

I think substance abuse should be part of the gun testing too. 

Finally. Something we agree on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

No, I wouldn't have.  I mainly did it to be a jackass too.  

As  I posted above, there is a difference between including it in a comprehensive program of gun ownership and you coming in here saying that you know what the core issue is and that is the ONLY thing we should be looking at.  

 

At least you're honest. And you admit that there is a double standard. Pro gun people stick together, even if they disagree with what's being said. 

This is why I've said there is going to be an issue with over reaching regulation. Many of the pro gun group say that they are not for a total ban or that they are for certain regulations. But, if they are given a chance to choose (vote) between too little or too much, they are going to choose too much regulation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Finally. Something we agree on. 

You realize that to use any test to determine whether or not someone can own a gun, the 2nd would have be abolished or reinterpreted, yes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Politician Spock said:

You realize that to use any test to determine whether or not someone can own a gun, the 2nd would have be abolished or reinterpreted, yes. 

Why? There are plenty of local regulations that work around the 2nd Amendment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KCitons said:

At least you're honest. And you admit that there is a double standard. Pro gun people stick together, even if they disagree with what's being said. 

This is why I've said there is going to be an issue with over reaching regulation. Many of the pro gun group say that they are not for a total ban or that they are for certain regulations. But, if they are given a chance to choose (vote) between too little or too much, they are going to choose too much regulation. 

Nothing do with a double standard.  I said I pushed back on you because you were presenting it in a way that it's the ONLY thing that should be looked at, and it's not effective as the lone thing to do against gun violence.  

If I wanted a gun ban I would probably agree with you and say that people who display illnesses that we have seen in the gun violence can't have access to guns.  That would mean probably 70% of gun owners would have to give up access to their guns.  I am just surprised to see you and SC going down this road - that's why I push on it more because I got the impression that is was more on the lines of "you have to be ill to shoot up a school/church/whatever, so target the mentall ill" than actually thinking about the ramifications of what I took you guys to be saying.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

I think substance abuse should be part of the gun testing too. 

Would there be many opposed to this idea?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Why? There are plenty of local regulations that work around the 2nd Amendment. 

If one has to pass a test, then by passing they've earned the privilege, and with the current interpretation of the 2nd, gun ownership is not a privilege, it's a right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Would there be many opposed to this idea?

 

Yes. 2nd amendment supporters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

Yes. 2nd amendment supporters.

Would that be applicable to the UBCs too? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Would that be applicable to the UBCs too? 

Not that I understand.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but my understanding is one isn't earning the privilege by passing a background check. Instead it's a matter that they've already lost the right by something they've done in the past, and the background check is just stopping the sale because they don't have the right to own a gun.

So the question about UBCs is really can a person do something to lose their right to own a gun. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, -fish- said:

“Officer Down, Assault Weapons and the War on Law Enforcement,” Violence Policy Center, Accessed January 15, 2019, http://www.vpc.org/studies/officeone.htm.

VPC is an anti-gun site - you cannot use it because it is specifically slanted to your view 

wasn't that what one poster said a page or two ago?  isn't that what you would say if I posted an NRA link ? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

VPC is an anti-gun site - you cannot use it because it is specifically slanted to your view 

wasn't that what one poster said a page or two ago?  isn't that what you would say if I posted an NRA link ? 

 

 

You don’t understand the difference between facts and propaganda.   The statistics used for the link you question came from the FBI and were cited if you wanted to check them.   You really are the worst at this.   

Edited by -fish-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, -fish- said:

You don’t understand the difference between facts and propaganda.   The statistics used for the link you question came from the FBI and were cited if you wanted to check them.   You really are the worst at this.   

no, this is a link to facts

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls

 

what you linked was an anti-gun site's twisting information to suit their needs  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fish if you want to look into this all in a reasonable and logical way .. you have to ask yourself what's causing all the deaths in the US - and rank them, and attack them accordingly (if life is what matters)

when you get all the way down to violence that include people choosing a gun ... which guns are used? you know the answer - its not semi-auto rifles

ask WHO is doing these shootings ...... pheasant hunters? trap shooters? turkey hunters? deer hunters? no .... and you know that too. You also know the people doing these things are also involved in domestic violence and drugs and other crimes when the guns are used. Breaking laws already 

your anti-gun side somehow thinks that by passing laws that shackle the people who DO NOT do these crimes, it'll stop the people who ignore laws and want to commit violence

 

its an unbelievable view to be honest 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

no, this is a link to facts

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls

 

what you linked was an anti-gun site's twisting information to suit their needs  

Nothing in that link has statistics on officer shootings.   More deflection.   It is a verified fact (as shown by multiple sources) that in 2016 LEO's killed in the line of duty were killed by assault weapons in 1 in 4 instances.   Prior to that, it is a verified fact that it was 1 in 5.   Instead of being concerned about the effect of assault weapons and gun violence on our police, you lie and deflect.   It's embarrassing for you.  Truly.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

fish if you want to look into this all in a reasonable and logical way .. you have to ask yourself what's causing all the deaths in the US - and rank them, and attack them accordingly (if life is what matters)

when you get all the way down to violence that include people choosing a gun ... which guns are used? you know the answer - its not semi-auto rifles

ask WHO is doing these shootings ...... pheasant hunters? trap shooters? turkey hunters? deer hunters? no .... and you know that too. You also know the people doing these things are also involved in domestic violence and drugs and other crimes when the guns are used. Breaking laws already 

your anti-gun side somehow thinks that by passing laws that shackle the people who DO NOT do these crimes, it'll stop the people who ignore laws and want to commit violence

 

its an unbelievable view to be honest 

Gun violence is reduced in states with stricter gun regulations.   Why is that?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

fish if you want to look into this all in a reasonable and logical way .. you have to ask yourself what's causing all the deaths in the US - and rank them, and attack them accordingly (if life is what matters)

when you get all the way down to violence that include people choosing a gun ... which guns are used? you know the answer - its not semi-auto rifles

ask WHO is doing these shootings ...... pheasant hunters? trap shooters? turkey hunters? deer hunters? no .... and you know that too. You also know the people doing these things are also involved in domestic violence and drugs and other crimes when the guns are used. Breaking laws already 

your anti-gun side somehow thinks that by passing laws that shackle the people who DO NOT do these crimes, it'll stop the people who ignore laws and want to commit violence

 

its an unbelievable view to be honest 

Do you believe that TSA boarding procedures shackle the people who do not do crimes on planes, and doesn't stop the people who ignore laws and want to commit crimes on planes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All laws affect people that don't commit crimes, except for laws that regulate what a convicted criminal can or can't do.  That's how laws work.   The argument of "don't adopt laws because criminals don't follow laws, so only law-abiding people are affected" is just another false talking point.  If it were true, states with stricter gun regulation would not show any difference in gun violence from those with looser laws.   But they do, which shows that this narrative is wrong.   

Repeating NRA propaganda does not make it true.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Politician Spock said:

Do you believe that TSA boarding procedures shackle the people who do not do crimes on planes, and doesn't stop the people who ignore laws and want to commit crimes on planes?

You win. You may charge gun owners no more than $12 for the background check, licensing, training, etc. That's roughly what the TSA charges flyers. And they don't have require a special license or training. Do you pay attention to the pre flight announcements every time the stewardess gives them? 

When I bought my handgun a couple of years ago, I had to pay $5 for the County handgun permit and $15 to the city for the registration. When can I expect my $8 refund?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, -fish- said:

Nothing in that link has statistics on officer shootings.   More deflection.   It is a verified fact (as shown by multiple sources) that in 2016 LEO's killed in the line of duty were killed by assault weapons in 1 in 4 instances.   Prior to that, it is a verified fact that it was 1 in 5.   Instead of being concerned about the effect of assault weapons and gun violence on our police, you lie and deflect.   It's embarrassing for you.  Truly.  

 

nothing in your stats showed the true gun crime stats - you wanted to glorify an exceptionally small % to say 1 in 4 ......... why would you do that ?

what were those weapons used? can you list them ? you'll probably not be able to find out 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, -fish- said:

Gun violence is reduced in states with stricter gun regulations.   Why is that?   

does that also mean cities with strict gun laws have reduced violence ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Politician Spock said:

Do you believe that TSA boarding procedures shackle the people who do not do crimes on planes, and doesn't stop the people who ignore laws and want to commit crimes on planes?

interesting thought process .... everyone is subjected to the same shackling at airports  ....... fair and equal

with gun laws, you're literally targeting gun owners - not fair, not equal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

interesting thought process .... everyone is subjected to the same shackling at airports  ....... fair and equal

with gun laws, you're literally targeting gun owners - not fair, not equal

The TSA doesn't target everyone. It only targets people who want to fly.

Gun regulations don't target everyone. It only targets people who want to own guns. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And any day now the TSA is going to show up at your property, make you take off your shoes, and confiscate your containers that are 3.4 ounces or more per item.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Politician Spock said:

The TSA doesn't target everyone. It only targets people who want to fly.

Gun regulations don't target everyone. It only targets people who want to own guns. 

:goodposting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Politician Spock said:

The TSA doesn't target everyone. It only targets people who want to fly.

Gun regulations don't target everyone. It only targets people who want to own guns. 

if TSA only made muslims go through checkpoints would you be ok with that ? white people rarely commit plane terrorism if ever .... why inconvenience all the other travelers ?

again ... fairly and equally everyone is treated

gun regulations have zero targeting to non-gun owners. Its like when gay marriage was illegal ............. that was actually fair and equal wasn't it? Every man in Arkansas couldn't marry another man, gays and not gays alike, right? Fair and equal ......... except it was determined not to be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

if TSA only made muslims go through checkpoints would you be ok with that ? white people rarely commit plane terrorism if ever .... why inconvenience all the other travelers ?

again ... fairly and equally everyone is treated

gun regulations have zero targeting to non-gun owners. Its like when gay marriage was illegal ............. that was actually fair and equal wasn't it? Every man in Arkansas couldn't marry another man, gays and not gays alike, right? Fair and equal ......... except it was determined not to be

I would not be OK if the TSA only made muslims go through checkpoints.

I also would not be OK if the gun regulations only applied to muslims. 

The TSA needs to treat everyone who wants to fly the same, and the gun regulations need to treat everyone who want to own a gun the same. 

 

 

Honestly... I think you are trying WAY TOO HARD here to try and make gun owners into victims. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

I would not be OK if the TSA only made muslims go through checkpoints.

I also would not be OK if the gun regulations only applied to muslims. 

The TSA needs to treat everyone who wants to fly the same, and the gun regulations need to treat everyone who want to own a gun the same. 

 

 

Honestly... I think you are trying WAY TOO HARD here to try and make gun owners into victims. 

It's not making gun owners the victims, it's that too many anti gun people see the only solution (either regulatory or financially) as being on the shoulders of gun owners. They ignore the role that all other things play into the issue (mental health, substance abuse, etc). 

It's removing the tool, but not fixing the problem. Are there still terrorists in the world that want to do harm to the US? We took away their ability to fly planes into our buildings, but the fundamental issue still remains. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, KCitons said:

It's not making gun owners the victims, it's that too many anti gun people see the only solution (either regulatory or financially) as being on the shoulders of gun owners. They ignore the role that all other things play into the issue (mental health, substance abuse, etc). 

It's removing the tool, but not fixing the problem. Are there still terrorists in the world that want to do harm to the US? We took away their ability to fly planes into our buildings, but the fundamental issue still remains. 

When mental health and substance abuse checks are brought up, pro gun reactions are 'do you need mental health evaluations to buy a bottle of wine?' and 'this is the extreme radical left viewpoint that makes it impossible to have any discussions'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, KCitons said:

It's not making gun owners the victims, it's that too many anti gun people see the only solution (either regulatory or financially) as being on the shoulders of gun owners. They ignore the role that all other things play into the issue (mental health, substance abuse, etc). 

It's removing the tool, but not fixing the problem. Are there still terrorists in the world that want to do harm to the US? We took away their ability to fly planes into our buildings, but the fundamental issue still remains. 

Only people who want to ban guns want to remove the tool. Regulation does not remove the tool. 

As has been said time and time and time again, regulation will effect anyone who wants to participate in that which is being regulated. This is not unique to gun ownership. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BroadwayG said:

When mental health and substance abuse checks are brought up, pro gun reactions are 'do you need mental health evaluations to buy a bottle of wine?' and 'this is the extreme radical left viewpoint that makes it impossible to have any discussions'

It's not impossible but it does take some effort. 

Should you have a mental health evaluation to buy a bottle of wine? Based on the correlation between alcohol and violence, I would say yes. The alcohol can exacerbate the mental health issue. 

By contrast, does a gun exacerbate the mental health issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

Only people who want to ban guns want to remove the tool. Regulation does not remove the tool. 

As has been said time and time and time again, regulation will effect anyone who wants to participate in that which is being regulated. This is not unique to gun ownership. 

It wants to remove it from those that would want to shoot other people.

Were you and I are stuck is based on what we think will have a proactive impact on gun deaths. More specifically mass shootings. I still agree with background checks. I don't agree with the training, testing, licensing, and insurance.

How does insurance prevent a mass shooting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 9:16 AM, Politician Spock said:

I just felt a desire to buy Levi's that I never had before. That's great marketing. 

Its been a while for me.  Have they finally caught up with the rest of the industry as far as producing "dad bod" lines?  Have they backed off of their opportunistic and ridiculous pricing from the 80's? 

 

As you can see I have been a Wrangler man for some time.  God bless the relaxed fit.  I am hoping they next come out with the slovenly fit and the slothful fit jean.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KCitons said:

It's not impossible but it does take some effort. 

Should you have a mental health evaluation to buy a bottle of wine? Based on the correlation between alcohol and violence, I would say yes. The alcohol can exacerbate the mental health issue. 

By contrast, does a gun exacerbate the mental health issue?

I'm all for mental health checks. I'm all for alcohol restriction too.

I don't have enough information to make a judgement on how alcohol or guns affect mental health issues.

It's just sad to me that any attempt at gun violence control gets deflected onto alcohol or knives or cars or planes or katana swords or something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BroadwayG said:

I'm all for mental health checks. I'm all for alcohol restriction too.

I don't have enough information to make a judgement on how alcohol or guns affect mental health issues.

It's just sad to me that any attempt at gun violence control gets deflected onto alcohol or knives or cars or planes or katana swords or something else.

Think about the two bolded statements you just made. 

You admit that you don't have enough information, but you're sad that gun control gets deflected. 

Wouldn't it make sense to understand, and have enough information, to make a good judgement? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, KCitons said:

It wants to remove it from those that would want to shoot other people.

I agree. Let's argue about this. I'll be on the side that supports this, and you be on the side that doesn't support it. 

14 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Were you and I are stuck is based on what we think will have a proactive impact on gun deaths. More specifically mass shootings. I still agree with background checks. I don't agree with the training, testing, licensing, and insurance.

I've agreed that what you want will have a proactive impact on gun deaths. 

Where you and I are stuck is based on you believing we can do one, and only one thing, and all the other things we could do that will also have a proactive impact on gun deaths should not be done. I'm for doing anything and everything that can have a proactive impact on gun deaths.

16 minutes ago, KCitons said:

How does insurance prevent a mass shooting?

It doesn't, anymore than car insurance prevents car accidents.

What it does is insure that victims aren't financially screwed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

Think about the two bolded statements you just made. 

You admit that you don't have enough information, but you're sad that gun control gets deflected. 

Wouldn't it make sense to understand, and have enough information, to make a good judgement? 

I don't understand the exact correlation between mental health issues and alcohol/guns, so I'm not going to make a proclamation one way or another on that particular question.

I fully understand that gun control topics get deflected onto all those other things, and that is sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Its been a while for me.  Have they finally caught up with the rest of the industry as far as producing "dad bod" lines?  Have they backed off of their opportunistic and ridiculous pricing from the 80's? 

 

As you can see I have been a Wrangler man for some time.  God bless the relaxed fit.  I am hoping they next come out with the slovenly fit and the slothful fit jean.

I don't have any answers to your questions.

My desire to buy Levi's is purely political. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BroadwayG said:

I don't understand the exact correlation between mental health issues and alcohol/guns, so I'm not going to make a proclamation one way or another on that particular question.

I fully understand that gun control topics get deflected onto all those other things, and that is sad.

What you're saying is that you aren't going to take the time to understand the correlation, so that makes you narrow minded when it comes to gun violence. 

I entered gun violence and alcohol into google, 

Alcohol abuse is a major predictor for gun crime.

Suicides accounts for 2/3rd of all gun deaths in this country. A google search of suicide and alcohol returns this article. 

The link between alcohol use and suicide

Quote

People with alcoholism are up to 120 times more likely to commit suicide than those who are not dependent on alcohol.

You can search for other things like domestic violence, sexual assault and rape, and other alcohol related deaths. You start to see the role that alcohol plays in violence. 

I would like to see a poll asking how many people committed a crime (violent or non violent) and whether or not they were under the influence of alcohol when it occurred. This could be anything from urinating in public, to simple bar fight. Most of those things wouldn't have happened if they weren't drinking. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

I agree. Let's argue about this. I'll be on the side that supports this, and you be on the side that doesn't support it. 

I've agreed that what you want will have a proactive impact on gun deaths. 

Where you and I are stuck is based on you believing we can do one, and only one thing, and all the other things we could do that will also have a proactive impact on gun deaths should not be done. I'm for doing anything and everything that can have a proactive impact on gun deaths.

It doesn't, anymore than car insurance prevents car accidents.

What it does is insure that victims aren't financially screwed. 

You're for doing things without regard to negative effects. I'm for doing things that are most likely to have a positive impact on preventing shootings. 

Let's talk about car insurance and compensation. If you drive your car into a group of people, what is the expected payout to those victims? Most policies have a max payout per incident. Someone mention that gun owners need to carry a $1 mil umbrella policy. We don't carry that for auto insurance. Insurance covers accidents, not willful criminal acts. The court handles criminal acts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Politician Spock said:

I would not be OK if the TSA only made muslims go through checkpoints.

I also would not be OK if the gun regulations only applied to muslims. 

The TSA needs to treat everyone who wants to fly the same, and the gun regulations need to treat everyone who want to own a gun the same. 

 

 

Honestly... I think you are trying WAY TOO HARD here to try and make gun owners into victims. 

but think about what you're saying

in the past 30 years, muslims have made up almost all the terrorists in our country ............ why wouldn't you want to target them and only them? I thought the anti-gun view was gun owners are bad - and by targeting them with laws and restrictions gun violence would drop ? 

when there is a serial killer, do police look at women as much as men? no .... because its rare rare for a woman to be a serial killer. They target the men

this is what I've said all along - target these criminals who are violent, drugs, felons etc ... mentally ill ....... THOSE are the people to target

don't target the tens of millions who do nothing wrong

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, KCitons said:

You're for doing things without regard to negative effects. I'm for doing things that are most likely to have a positive impact on preventing shootings. 

Let's talk about car insurance and compensation. If you drive your car into a group of people, what is the expected payout to those victims? Most policies have a max payout per incident. Someone mention that gun owners need to carry a $1 mil umbrella policy. We don't carry that for auto insurance. Insurance covers accidents, not willful criminal acts. The court handles criminal acts. 

Gun insurance would have to have a max payout as well, or else the insurance companies couldn't manage their risk properly. The amount of what that max would be required by law to be is debatable, I agree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, KCitons said:

What you're saying is that you aren't going to take the time to understand the correlation, so that makes you narrow minded when it comes to gun violence. 

I entered gun violence and alcohol into google, 

Alcohol abuse is a major predictor for gun crime.

Suicides accounts for 2/3rd of all gun deaths in this country. A google search of suicide and alcohol returns this article. 

The link between alcohol use and suicide

You can search for other things like domestic violence, sexual assault and rape, and other alcohol related deaths. You start to see the role that alcohol plays in violence. 

I would like to see a poll asking how many people committed a crime (violent or non violent) and whether or not they were under the influence of alcohol when it occurred. This could be anything from urinating in public, to simple bar fight. Most of those things wouldn't have happened if they weren't drinking. 

 

Great! Let's prevent alcohol abusers from accessing guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.