U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-30-2008, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Montrose, CA
3,031 posts, read 7,869,281 times
Reputation: 1925

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post


Get your stories straight - you are confusing all of us
And the continuous use of bold for everything is hard on the eyes! TM close your bold tags please!

In any case, we don't need any more gun control than we already have in place. My son was hunting with his father from the time he was big enough to hold a .420 shotgun. When he got bigger, he moved up to a 12 gauge. I never worried about my son shooting someone or himself. I was more worried about ADULT hunters out drinking and shooting than my kid being a danger to anyone.

 
Old 10-30-2008, 10:37 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,070,360 times
Reputation: 3717
Default Repeating ourselves endlessly again for the nth time etc

TristansMommy, you misunderstand a lot of things here. To clarify..

1) Mentally ill people cannot legally acquire any firearms as of now. Fact. Case closed. If they have them, they likely stole them. Or even less frequently, they acquired them legally then went nuts, then homicidal, (completely unnoticed by their friends, family or doctor). It happens, but with pretty low probability and frequency overall. Fact.

2) If you presume all of your fellow citizens are potentially, and worse, most likely, mentally unstable, then what can I say? The stats are definitely against your erroneous perceptions.

3) Having such perceptions makes you and others who are apparently afraid of guns or their potential, the true paranoids who perhaps need help. (Let's remember the definition of "paranoid": an UNJUSTIFIED fear of anything.) Tin Knocker I believe, correctly noted that the stats on homicidal, maniacal use of guns by law-abiding legal gun owners is spectacularly low.

4) Just why, then, should we focus new even more onerous legislation on those citizens? That reeks of gun hatred versus common sense. What about the repeat criminal offenders? The early-release "I promise to be good" types? The massive numbers of illegal alien known criminals that the Mexican Government helps out of their country? Gun-brandishing gang thugs waving firearms out their car windows and shooting into innocent citizens' houses in east LA? Where's the active prosecution of those types? And even if they are successfully incarcerated, why grant them early release? Note again that, legally, they can no longer purchase ANY firearm, even an old single-shot muzzle-loading black powder derringer.

5) You seem to fixated on event situations that are most unlikely or very infrequent. (as in: person goes nutto and runs into a busy shopping mall or school and opens fire with a completely illegal full-auto weapon which he acquired from an overseas-based gang).

To that point, you DO realize that these events, when they do happen, truly are few and far between, right? Given our population of 300M, 3 such events a year involving 3 shooters is (lessee here, where's my calculator) 1 X 10(-6) percent, right? Versus drunk drivers purposefully and with malice aforethought, killing or maiming 15,000 people a year, which is (calculator again please...) 5000 TIMES more people killed. By a driver who goes out knowing they are a danger on the road to anyone else out there. And yet you aren't paranoid about those idiots when you go out to the shopping mall in your car? Instead you want to further restrict ME?

6) What did I ever do with my firearms to incense you or anyone else? I saved a few people a few times, including myself. Is that wrong? Let's turn the old "If it saves the life of just one child" argument around here. I HAVE saved lives with the legal defensive use of an ugly compact very threatening-looking sidearm (which is sorta the point of carrying one). In several of those cases, at least 5 of them in my old line of work, I only had to show it, not even use it!. I guess I'm just BAD, right? Or as little TKramar would suggest, I was a coward, not wanting to take on, in a few cases, distinctly anti-social grizzly bears with my bare hands. I sure wish TK had been there to show me how, but I digress.

6) And then there's media! I hope for your own sanity you do not just blindly accept and believe whatever they blurt out every night , but rather more correctly are very suspicious of their exaggerated advertisement-selling spectacularist aggrandizing approach? I understand your misunderstandings if that's your primary source of information about gun crime. or perhaps it's liberal-oriented web sites? They all hate firearms ownership and the "evil" gun lobby, being, in fact, a bunch of "We Know Best" liberals. You're not one of those, are you? Do you feel that you know more than me about this stuff? Shall we compare credentials and bias levels?

7) We DO need more active and vigorous prosecution of gun crime types, gang thugs, illegals, the mentally criminally insane, etc. Additional gun laws that only law-abiding folks will reluctantly obey, are USELESS. What's even more frustrating, you know this to be true in your heart of hearts, but won't allow yourself to say it out loud. Party loyalty?

So... Just a few accurate observations and suggestions for you on my part. Now don't just fight me because you want to or must be loyal to the liberalist thinkers... consider if any of my points are valid. This is, after all, supposed to be a debate where one side just might become more enlightened. We won't hold it against you if you concede a point or two. Matter of fact, we always applaud people who become skeptical, independant open-minded truth-seeking free thinkers!

Hopefully, "Welcome Aboard"

Last edited by rifleman; 10-30-2008 at 10:49 AM.. Reason: typos, clarity
 
Old 10-30-2008, 11:54 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,115,320 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuSuSushi View Post
And the continuous use of bold for everything is hard on the eyes! TM close your bold tags please!

.

I will bold WHATEVER I Like.. thank you very much. I do not take orders from you.
 
Old 10-30-2008, 12:14 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,115,320 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
TristansMommy, you misunderstand a lot of things here. To clarify..

1) Mentally ill people cannot legally acquire any firearms as of now. Fact. Case closed. If they have them, they likely stole them. Or even less frequently, they acquired them legally then went nuts, then homicidal, (completely unnoticed by their friends, family or doctor). It happens, but with pretty low probability and frequency overall. Fact.

I never said that it happens frequently.. but if it even happens once, that is one time too many. Obviously someone who is a KNOWN mental case obviously will not acquire a firearm. My wish is to stop someone that IS a mental case undiagnosed from getting a gun. Do you know that a lot of biopolar cases go undiagnosed for very long time before it's even realized?

2) If you presume all of your fellow citizens are potentially, and worse, most likely, mentally unstable, then what can I say? The stats are definitely against your erroneous perceptions.

And if the stats are against than most people will have no problem passing a psych test We'll just make sure that those that ARE mentally unstable do not get one because they are undiagnosed.

3) Having such perceptions makes you and others who are apparently afraid of guns or their potential, the true paranoids who perhaps need help. (Let's remember the definition of "paranoid": an UNJUSTIFIED fear of anything.) Tin Knocker I believe, correctly noted that the stats on homicidal, maniacal use of guns by law-abiding legal gun owners is spectacularly low.

I already acknowledged that it is low.. but it has been more prevelant lately! Something you can't deny. I don't fear anyone with a gun, but if we can just prevent one person from obtaining a firearm that is mentally ill (undiagnosed) than that is potentially someone's or a group of people's lives we saved.

See.. I care about EVERY life.. wether the stats point to 1 or 1,000's.

4) Just why, then, should we focus new even more onerous legislation on those citizens? That reeks of gun hatred versus common sense. What about the repeat criminal offenders? The early-release "I promise to be good" types? The massive numbers of illegal alien known criminals that the Mexican Government helps out of their country? Gun-brandishing gang thugs waving firearms out their car windows and shooting into innocent citizens' houses in east LA? Where's the active prosecution of those types? And even if they are successfully incarcerated, why grant them early release? Note again that, legally, they can no longer purchase ANY firearm, even an old single-shot muzzle-loading black powder derringer.

That is a different topic all together.. and I don't believe they should be granted early release. Actually it's like an alcoholic or a drug user... if they go back to hanging out with their old using friends, they'll use again! You've already stated that they can not legally obtain a gun.. tHat's great..

Why is a psych test such a tremendous thing to have to go through in order to get a gun? Really.. I do not believe it is such a big deal to do if it means that we can be just a little safer! ALL of us. Because gun carrying citizens could also be victims of another gun carrying citizen that shouldn't have been given a gun if their mental state had been known to begin with. Actually I would think you would welcome a psych test.. because you've proven a) that you are not mentally unstable and b) Assuring us non carrying citizens that those that are legally carrying are not crazy... and the crazy's didn't pass the test!

5) You seem to fixated on event situations that are most unlikely or very infrequent. (as in: person goes nutto and runs into a busy shopping mall or school and opens fire with a completely illegal full-auto weapon which he acquired from an overseas-based gang).

Frequent or infrequent.. again.. once or twice is too much for me. And this isn't new.. Ever remember an unstable mentally ill college student taking a gun onto a LIRR commuter train and killing many people and injuring others about a decade ago. This isn't old, this isn't new.. but it is more frequent lately. I would think that as a gun carrier you would want to make sure that none of the crazy's legally get guns which creates this "anti gun" movement you do not like so much in the first place. Kind of giving the rest of you a bad reputation, so to speak.

To that point, you DO realize that these events, when they do happen, truly are few and far between, right? Given our population of 300M, 3 such events a year involving 3 shooters is (lessee here, where's my calculator) 1 X 10(-6) percent, right? Versus drunk drivers purposefully and with malice aforethought, killing or maiming 15,000 people a year, which is (calculator again please...) 5000 TIMES more people killed. By a driver who goes out knowing they are a danger on the road to anyone else out there. And yet you aren't paranoid about those idiots when you go out to the shopping mall in your car? Instead you want to further restrict ME?

6) What did I ever do with my firearms to incense you or anyone else? I saved a few people a few times, including myself. Is that wrong? Let's turn the old "If it saves the life of just one child" argument around here. I HAVE saved lives with the legal defensive use of an ugly compact very threatening-looking sidearm (which is sorta the point of carrying one). In several of those cases, at least 5 of them in my old line of work, I only had to show it, not even use it!. I guess I'm just BAD, right? Or as little TKramar would suggest, I was a coward, not wanting to take on, in a few cases, distinctly anti-social grizzly bears with my bare hands. I sure wish TK had been there to show me how, but I digress.


I am just as vigourosly opposed to drunk driving! As a matter of fact in the coutny I just moved from a drunk driver pulled over would be arrested and have their photo and name published on the newspaper website ..it's called the "wall of shame". I'm also all for drunk drivers being accused of murder rather than simply vehicular manslaughter. There was a case on LI where an innocent little girl was killed along with the limo driver on the way home from a wedding reception and the driver was going the wrong way on the parkway (if you know LI you know you REALLY have to be 3 sheets to the wind to do that). They were convicted of murder in the second degree i believe.. the first time ever a driver was. We need more of that!!

6% is unaccpetable..to me.. Those people should never have been allowed to have a gun in the first place and perhaps if they had to take a psych evaluation they might have been denied their license to carry weapons.. that is to say if their state required such a license.
6) And then there's media! I hope for your own sanity you do not just blindly accept and believe whatever they blurt out every night , but rather more correctly are very suspicious of their exaggerated advertisement-selling spectacularist aggrandizing approach? I understand your misunderstandings if that's your primary source of information about gun crime. or perhaps it's liberal-oriented web sites? They all hate firearms ownership and the "evil" gun lobby, being, in fact, a bunch of "We Know Best" liberals. You're not one of those, are you? Do you feel that you know more than me about this stuff? Shall we compare credentials and bias levels?

No. .. I don't.. and I never said that the stats were high.. high, low, whatever. I just dont' think having one more check in place to prevent guns from being in the wrong hands is too much to ask. Again, if you are mentally stable you have nothing to worry about!

7) We DO need more active and vigorous prosecution of gun crime types, gang thugs, illegals, the mentally criminally insane, etc. Additional gun laws that only law-abiding folks will reluctantly obey, are USELESS. What's even more frustrating, you know this to be true in your heart of hearts, but won't allow yourself to say it out loud. Party loyalty?

I agree on the more vigorous prosecution part. But why not attack it from BOTH sides.. albeit it the legal abiding side is a lot less to tackle.

So... Just a few accurate observations and suggestions for you on my part. Now don't just fight me because you want to or must be loyal to the liberalist thinkers... consider if any of my points are valid. This is, after all, supposed to be a debate where one side just might become more enlightened. We won't hold it against you if you concede a point or two. Matter of fact, we always applaud people who become skeptical, independant open-minded truth-seeking free thinkers!

Hopefully, "Welcome Aboard"
I read everything you wrote. I don't disagree with alot of it.. but YOU won't concede to a point or two on my side. AGain..what is the worry of having yet one more safety check in place when allowing legalized gun use..and that check isa mental evaluation of the person obtaining that license. If you are mentally stable and are a sane person, you have nothing to worry about. Inconvenienced by what would be a new hoop to jump through.. yes.. but in the end, you'll get your gun and go about your day... and the rest of the public can have piece of mind knowing that even more steps are being taken to prevent guns from falling in the wrong hands.
 
Old 10-30-2008, 12:24 PM
 
Location: Montrose, CA
3,031 posts, read 7,869,281 times
Reputation: 1925
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
I will bold WHATEVER I Like.. thank you very much. I do not take orders from you.
Orders? Since when is a polite comment with "please" appended to it an order? Bold is hard on the eyes; it's also best used sparingly for emphasis. If you actually want people to read your posts, it would behoove you to not bold every single thing. But if your goal is to make your posts look as annoying and angry as possible, you're succeeding.
 
Old 10-30-2008, 12:36 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,115,320 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuSuSushi View Post
Orders? Since when is a polite comment with "please" appended to it an order? Bold is hard on the eyes; it's also best used sparingly for emphasis. If you actually want people to read your posts, it would behoove you to not bold every single thing. But if your goal is to make your posts look as annoying and angry as possible, you're succeeding.

Perhaps you should look at WHY I'm using the BOLd It's because I'm answering line by line and am seperating MY answer to THEIR post within their quoted text.. and THAT makes it easier on the eyes then if MY answer blended with their post!
 
Old 10-30-2008, 01:01 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,380,187 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
Everyone's all for guns with no infringements until they are a victime of those uninfringements!
First off TM - I WAS one of your so-called "victims" - when the bad guy, on drugs, broke into my home and was about to kill my wife and son with a gun - luckily, I killed him first.

While times change, the line I quoted to you has NOT CHANGED. Yet, we have 1000's of laws regulating guns - we don't need any more. BTW - there is already a law regarding "mentally unstable" - we don't need ANOTHER law -
 
Old 10-30-2008, 01:05 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,380,187 times
Reputation: 4893
BOLD equals YELLING
 
Old 10-30-2008, 02:03 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,257,121 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
First off.. GD.. the constitution was written in a completely different time under different circumstances. Bearing arms was KEY to survival back then.. now it's not so much a matter of survival, as all we have to do is drive to the local mart to purchase food!

Secondly, the constitution was written so that it CAN change with the times. That's the genious of it.

In modern society there comes a different set of circumstances and responsiblity. A paranoid schizophrenic does not have the right to a gun when there is a strong probability that he will use that weapon to harm himself or others.. I'm not asking to ban guns .. I'm asking for guns NOT to fall into the hands of someone that is NOT mentally stable who will use those guns to shoot up a mall..

I suppose you are okay if a suicidal homicidal mentally unstable person has a gun? You wouldn't feel that way if you were a victim of a shooting in which a persons right to bear arms wasn't subjected to a psych evaluation that had he had to take would have never had that weapon in hand to shoot up the joint!

Everyone's all for guns with no infringements until they are a victime of those uninfringements!
here you go, do some reading first.

GunCite: gun control and Second Amendment issues

the group that put together guncite.com has done some very exhaustive work on pulling apart the second amendment word by word, punctuation by punctuation, and looking at the words in the context and way they were used during that time period.

the "shall not be infringed" is the same as "Congress shall pass no law" except that is a more broad statement, meaning lower courts, high courts, any part of government shall not pass any law.
 
Old 10-30-2008, 03:25 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,115,320 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
BOLD equals YELLING

Actually you are wrong all CAPS equals yelling
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top