[BBMW]

Sometimes more than a sound bite is called for.

[jet757f]

Originally Posted by beachhead

I voted "no", because it's a complete waste of time, money, and the rights of Americans. Those who cannot comprehend what "shall not be infringed" means are lying to you. You cannot buy a gun from a gun store, or a vendor at a gun show without a background check. There is NO "gun show loophole", it is a lie. And if you don't believe it, there is a gun show at cashman this weekend. Go see if you can buy a gun without a background check (unless you're a ccw holder, which already had one done)

I lived through this in commiefornia, and it is a nightmare for the law abiding citizens, and really only amounts to a hidden "tax" on legal transactions. If commieland had no gun releated murders (you know like the terrorists in san bernadino, the recent cop ambushes in lancaster, palm springs, and others, etc) I might find some use in it. However, the reality is the criminals who murder people don't pay any more attention to this sort of crap than they do any other laws. The only thing this law would do is make more criminals out of law abiding citizens, and collect more fees.

Please don't californicate nevada. Let's keep it a free state.

Well said!!!

[LasVegasPlayer]

Do people really think that criminals will stop buying guns off the streets if this law passes? The answer seems very obviously no. If this passes, all it does is make new crimes for things law abiding people are doing without incident today.

"But if it saves one life" <---- Something you will never be able to prove, even if it does, and it isn't like criminals will all at a sudden stop possessing guns illegally. On the other hand, you have now created a crime for something that is commonplace in the rural parts of the state.

[MediocreButArrogant]

These laws only indirectly affect gun crime by making the criminal do a little more work to illegally obtain a firearm.

I'd rather support laws and enforcement of existing laws that would directly address gun crime. I favor severe penalties for 1) possession of firearms by prohibited persons, 2) those who help prohibited persons obtain firearms (straw purchases), 3) those who use firearms in the commission of a crime, and confiscation of firearms from those who become prohibited persons (I can't believe we don't do this already)

My gut tells me most gun crime (not the mass shootings that make the headlines, but the ones that are responsible for the most deaths) are committed by prohibited persons. I'm talking the 40+ people that get shot in Chicago on a busy weekend.

I would be totally ok with a law that permitted severing a couple fingers off the hand of a felon in possession of a firearm, so that they could no longer effectively grip a handgun. Maybe take off the index and middle finger, so they couldn't even aim and fire a shotgun effectively. The guy that killed a person inside the Starbucks on south Rainbow recently - he had already had a conviction in 2009 for felon in possession of a firearm, in addition to four other felony convictions:

https://www.scribd.com/document/3255...ort#from_embed

[BBMW]

If you want to deal with violence, you have to deal with the violent. Figuring out who they are is not that difficult. Use arrest, conviction, and prison disciplinary records, build a statistical model to predict whether a convicted criminal is likely to be violent in the future, and modify the criminal codes to allow that data to used to impose very long sentences for pretty much any crime committed by a repeat felon. I would not exempt juveniles and juvenile records from this process.

Trying to restrict access to guns has never worked, and can never work. It's a waste of time. The criminal class will always find ways to get them. Don't believe me? Look at the heroin business. The product is illegal everywhere and is available everywhere.

[Irish4evr]

Originally Posted by BBMW

If you want to deal with violence, you have to deal with the violent. Figuring out who they are is not that difficult. Use arrest, conviction, and prison disciplinary records, build a statistical model to predict whether a convicted criminal is likely to be violent in the future, and modify the criminal codes to allow that data to used to impose very long sentences for pretty much any crime committed by a repeat felon. I would not exempt juveniles and juvenile records from this process.

Trying to restrict access to guns has never worked, and can never work. It's a waste of time. The criminal class will always find ways to get them. Don't believe me? Look at the heroin business. The product is illegal everywhere and is available everywhere.

Check out the gun violence in Chicago...a place where gun "laws" are about at strict as it gets...There is an app for Chicago PD....listen to the insanity...!

[BBMW]

^
Exactly. BTW part of what I'm talking about comes out of the Chicago experience. The police chief there said if there are a bout 1,500 people that if he could lock up, he could drastically reduce crime.

[Buzz123]

Originally Posted by beachhead

I voted "no", because it's a complete waste of time, money, and the rights of Americans. Those who cannot comprehend what "shall not be infringed" means are lying to you. You cannot buy a gun from a gun store, or a vendor at a gun show without a background check. There is NO "gun show loophole", it is a lie. And if you don't believe it, there is a gun show at cashman this weekend. Go see if you can buy a gun without a background check (unless you're a ccw holder, which already had one done)

I lived through this in commiefornia, and it is a nightmare for the law abiding citizens, and really only amounts to a hidden "tax" on legal transactions. If commieland had no gun releated murders (you know like the terrorists in san bernadino, the recent cop ambushes in lancaster, palm springs, and others, etc) I might find some use in it. However, the reality is the criminals who murder people don't pay any more attention to this sort of crap than they do any other laws. The only thing this law would do is make more criminals out of law abiding citizens, and collect more fees.

Please don't californicate nevada. Let's keep it a free state.

Well, OK, forget the drugs problem. Let's just listen to Beachhead. I not only voted no, but I voted He** No!. This is an attempt by Michael Bloomberg to interfere in the politics of other states. All you have to do is look at the complete failure that gun control has been in cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, and even Washington, DC. where the murder rate has skyrocketed.

[Buzz123]

Originally Posted by logline

This is a nutty rant and an absolutely cuckoo website you linked to. Being married to licensed, practicing psychologist of nearly 20 years, I happen to know a thing or two about this topic and you clearly don't know the basic difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist. Psychologists generally are all about talk therapy (not drugs!) and spend an hour with their patients at a time while psychiatrists are the MDs in lab coats who prescribe drugs, often not spending more than 3-5 minutes with a patient... my wife sees this happen every single day.

Secondly, having said that, there are indeed many instances where drug therapy is actually the correct and proper way to treat certain disorders. The suicide problem you're referring to is probably the sudden discontinuation of anti-depressants which should be tapered down, not given up cold turkey. Stopping drug therapy suddenly is what causes many of these problems with suicidal ideation. You're confusing ADD and ADHD medication (which admittedly, is often over-diagnosed in children) with depression medication. In so doing, you confuse the issue with your lack of medical knowledge.

Thirdly, you clearly have a political bent to this topic as the site you linked to is run by a guy named Art Harman out of Fairfax, VA who clearly has a conservative axe to grind. He also runs Conservativefoundation.info. Your link is more political than medical which is never a good mix when it comes to patient outcomes.

Considering all the above, I can't imagine what your motivation is for posting such nonsense. Being blindly and illogically anti-psychology/psychiatry is reminiscent of a certain group. Are you a Scientologist, perhaps?

Thank you for making my point.

And, oh...did you take psychology in college? I did. I do know the difference between psychology and psychiatry. Psychiatry is the Art of Controlling the Masses That began when Stalin brought Pavlov to the Kremlin to figure out how to use his salivating dog theories on the people.

Psychology is the Art of Getting Around People. A Psychiatrist is merely an MD who studied psychology, but is more dangerous because of his prescription pad. Neither has a clue how the mind works or doesn't work. Neither one has ever cured anyone of anything. Nether is a valid mental subject.

Sounds like your wife has you right where she wants you.

[Irish4evr]

Give em hell Buzz.....us old timers are getting few and far between and my back is starting to hurt...,tag...yer it !