Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 01-12-2011, 12:26 AM
 
Location: County Mayo Descendant
2,725 posts, read 5,981,326 times
Reputation: 1217

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
Why are law enforcement officers armed?
Is there some special reason?
Do you really need to ask that? are they supposed to go into a crack house without a gun?

 
Old 01-12-2011, 12:26 AM
 
Location: East Central Phoenix
8,044 posts, read 12,267,795 times
Reputation: 9835
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
That's what you get when lunatics brutally gun down people.
So sorry that you don't believe this should be up for discussion, you might change your mind if that was your 9 year old, or your father, husband, wife, etc.
That's the whole point. Why should more gun control laws be enacted, which would eliminate approximately 1% of the crime? Admittedly, Loughner purchased his firearm legally ... but he is among that 1% of the criminally insane. The overwhelming majority of gun owners are not violent miscreants ... they are decent, law abiding citizens who advocate carrying weapons for the purpose of defending themselves against a**holes like Loughner.

Besides, we already have plenty of gun laws as it is. For instance: remember the Brady Bill, which became law in 1993? All the gun control advocates at the time said how that law would reduce the chances of the criminally insane obtaining firearms. Well, it obviously didn't stop the Columbine incident, the Virginia Tech shootings, or this psycho in Tucson!

Hey, here's an idea: instead of imposing more restrictions on our Constitutional rights, how about letting the punishment fit the crime? Eliminate the number of appeals, and carry out the death penalty in a swift, quick manner in the same method the criminal used to kill his victims! Punishment can be more of a deterrent than anything else.
 
Old 01-12-2011, 12:32 AM
 
Location: County Mayo Descendant
2,725 posts, read 5,981,326 times
Reputation: 1217
Quote:
Originally Posted by outbacknv View Post
Those that have been adjudicated mentally defective are already prohibited from possessing firearms. While it's true that too many slip through the cracks the alternative (in my opinion) is worse.

Without substantial limitation something as innocuous as obtaining a prescription for Wellbutrin (an antidepressant) to aid in in smoking cessation could well disqualify a person from owning a firearm. A diagnosis of PTSD in combat vet could also be a disqualifier. Such a diagnosis could come from something as simple as a sleep disorder.

Giving government unlimited power to define mental illness is a recipe for disaster.
You are right, some people after a loss of a family member etc may need a drug for awhile, they should not be classed as mental illness and a threat to society.
 
Old 01-12-2011, 12:35 AM
 
Location: Earth
24,620 posts, read 28,286,152 times
Reputation: 11416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native View Post
That's the whole point. Why should more gun control laws be enacted, which would eliminate approximately 1% of the crime? Admittedly, Loughner purchased his firearm legally ... but he is among that 1% of the criminally insane. The overwhelming majority of gun owners are not violent miscreants ... they are decent, law abiding citizens who advocate carrying weapons for the purpose of defending themselves against a**holes like Loughner.

Besides, we already have plenty of gun laws as it is. For instance: remember the Brady Bill, which became law in 1993? All the gun control advocates at the time said how that law would reduce the chances of the criminally insane obtaining firearms. Well, it obviously didn't stop the Columbine incident, the Virginia Tech shootings, or this psycho in Tucson!

Hey, here's an idea: instead of imposing more restrictions on our Constitutional rights, how about letting the punishment fit the crime? Eliminate the number of appeals, and carry out the death penalty in a swift, quick manner in the same method the criminal used to kill his victims! Punishment can be more of a deterrent than anything else.
I'm sure you feel that you'd like that last paragraph to occur, until it's you or your family that's been wrongly accused and sentenced.
How many people have been exhonorated with DNA or other evidence after trial?

Until gun owners meet a means test, they shouldn't be permitted access to a gun.

Answers.com - How many gun owners are there in the United States of America
Number of guns and gun owners in USA.
Most estimates range between 39% and 50% of US households having at least one gun(thats about 43-55 million households). The estimates for the number of privately owned guns range from 190 million to 300 million. Removed those that skew the stats for thier own purposes the best estimates are about 45% or 52 million of american households owning 260 million guns).
there are about 80 million gun owners in America with a combining total of 258 million guns


1% of 80,000,000 = 800,000 crazies with guns.
That's significant.
 
Old 01-12-2011, 12:40 AM
 
Location: County Mayo Descendant
2,725 posts, read 5,981,326 times
Reputation: 1217
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcsldcd View Post
The Democrat will not be happy until only the criminals have guns. can you imagine the jobs they will create in the blackmarket for guns and ammo?
"The Democrat" is that how they are defined? I wouldn't put all democrats in the same class as the ones you are thinking of.
 
Old 01-12-2011, 12:41 AM
 
26,680 posts, read 28,674,422 times
Reputation: 7943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native View Post
Punishment can be more of a deterrent than anything else.
Not when you're dealing with someone who is mentally insane, mentally handicapped, intoxicated, etc.
 
Old 01-12-2011, 12:42 AM
 
Location: County Mayo Descendant
2,725 posts, read 5,981,326 times
Reputation: 1217
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
Perhaps EVERY person should be regularly given a mental evaluation,and if they fail,be placed in an institution?

Would that work to make you feel safe?

I can see the institutions filled already, LOL I needed that.
 
Old 01-12-2011, 12:49 AM
 
Location: County Mayo Descendant
2,725 posts, read 5,981,326 times
Reputation: 1217
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
Are you suggesting that there would be 16000 less homicides if guns were banned???
I wouldn't mind someone showing figures on how many of these homicides were done with unlicensed guns or illegal ones.
 
Old 01-12-2011, 12:49 AM
 
26,680 posts, read 28,674,422 times
Reputation: 7943
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcsldcd View Post
The Democrat will not be happy until only the criminals have guns. can you imagine the jobs they will create in the blackmarket for guns and ammo?
The NRA endorsed 58 Democrats last fall. The world isn't as one-sided as you think it is.

Pro-gun Democrats win endorsements from NRA
 
Old 01-12-2011, 12:58 AM
 
3 posts, read 2,691 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution
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.
However, after reading through this thread, and in prior discussions, it appears that most people do feel that the right to keep and bear arms can be infringed upon in some way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by infringers based upon the individual
felons, people with mental illness of people not of a certain age should not have the right to keep and bear arms
Quote:
Originally Posted by infringers based upon the type of arm
people should not be allowed to keep nuclear weapons
Quote:
Originally Posted by infringers based upon regulation
the government may infringe by requiring, for example, registration
I've encountered a very few people who didn't fall into one of these categories. As such, these discussions/arguments are almost impossible to resolve. We are not discussing absolutes, but rather points on spectrums. Since we are discussing spectrums there can be only one clear cut-off point-that of zero regulation.

And few people want that.
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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:23 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top