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.
As I continue to wait for an answer to my question(s) presented before, I think my my "smoking gun" analogy is a good one for a few reasons, especially for me personally. I have used both fire arms and smoked cigarettes in my past. Both are lethal products that can really only cause harm when used by humans, whether the harm is intentional or not. Both are big ticket profit products for the manufacturers who have both made billions and spent many millions to promote the use of their product and/or to prevent any restriction of sales.
The government makes as much if not more off of smoking.
Quote:
Much like we can say about the restriction of cigarette sales and as many objected back in the day, making it illegal for children to buy smokes cannot keep children from smoking. Removing cigarette vending machines from public spaces also does little to nothing in terms of keeping those who want cigarettes from having them. The warnings on cigarette packages doesn't prevent cancer...
Yet, the bottom line is that all these things can and should be done, regardless how much we can debate the net overall effects to curtail the death count. At a minimum, we can know that all prudent public policy has been applied where and how possible in order to do limit the death toll while not infringing on the right to smoke.
Moving cigarette's from a machine to a rack is a feel good solution, nothing more. It didn't stop a single person from smoking. The idea should be to stop these things, not make you feel good that you did "something" no matter how worthless that thing was to address the problem.
Quote:
In the same way we can do much here and there to tighten gun controls that can and do limit access to guns as appropriate, regardless how effectively any one measure may be.
So do it even though it stops nothing? You might want to listen to yourself.....your argument is to do something even though that something is going to do nothing.
Quote:
Why not as long as legal law abiding gun enthusiasts can continue to do their gun thing? As long as our right to bear arms is not being questioned (as it never really is from a public policy standpoint).
Name one good reason not to do what can easily, reasonably, be done to appropriately restrict internet gun sales or non-background check gun show sales? Why not do as HRC proposes? For the reasons I outlined in my now famously avoided comment #1272.
Internet gun sales are restricted. They have to be sent to a licensed dealer, who then does his thing. I'll go back to post 1272 but I imagine it's much like this one which is why no one addressed it.
Like I commented before, I don't think there is any real way to prevent gun violence any more than it is possible to prevent terrorism, because when a crazy wants to do crazy, crazy will happen...
But..., Hillary Clinton is now calling for additional gun control, that if imposed, will obviously not prevent another mass killing. It might just prevent one or more incidents that we can never know about, because prevention is just as impossible to measure in terms of what DOES NOT happen that might have happened.
So, there is no real way to stop these people (there are for some) but despite saying that, maybe one is stopped because we never knew about it? Is there a real way to stop them or not?
Quote:
So..., I ask myself if I were a real gun enthusiast without any criminal or mental illness record, with a totally clean record, free to polish my guns every night, shoot at targets, hunt, protect my home from bad guys, pretend to be a crime-fighter too, and all the rest that pro-NRA types love to do, why not accept these additional gun control measures that won't keep me from doing my gun thing?
As I noted in your other post. Why, so you will feel good about yourself? You yourself note that it isn't going to stop those intent on doing harm so why? Why exactly? To make you feel better is not a valid reason.
Quote:
If it were me, I would think all the better to simply do all we can in terms of keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people, if nothing else to allow this country to say we have done all that can be done. To be able to confirm this for the victim families past, present and future.
You've come nowhere close to addressing what we might be able to do. Your entire premise is making it more difficult for law abiding citizens without once addressing those who are intent on harming others.
Quote:
Is this not a worthwhile goal, even if some believe the results will be negligible? If additional constraints might stop even one more mass killing from happening, should I not as a law-abiding gun owner agree with these tighter gun control laws just for the sake of doing all possible? I find the objections to the additional background check time, paperwork, additional cost..., all somewhat petty in light of the opportunity to respond with all reasonable measures that do not keep gun enthusiasts from enjoying their guns.
Should we put restrictions on our rights to stop one single person intent on harming others? No, we should not. There is only one legitimate way to restrict someone's rights and that is through due process.
Quote:
Of course I understand why the NRA pushes all the propaganda to the contrary. We all understand the profit motive and the significant profits enjoyed by gun manufacturers. The heavy propaganda is to be expected from those who are most directly profiting from less gun control. Same as RJ Reynolds has always been against the warnings and control of tobacco sales.
I didn't bother looking for more up to date info but in 2009 the federal government made $8,512,263,000 in taxes off tobacco while the states made $15,753,355,199.
The news industry makes a ton of money off the freedom of the press also......is that why they would argue against restrictions on that freedom?
Quote:
Too bad the NRA still seems to have a little more clout and just enough money to keep the sensible gun controls from passing into law, even though law abiding gun enthusiasts can continue to smoke their guns with tighter gun control laws just like tobacco enthusiasts have continued to smoke their smokes even with tighter regulation.
In the face of this sort of violence and/or incidents of death, it takes a much better argument than inconvenience or higher expense to justify not doing all within reason that can be done, IMHO.
There always has to be a boogeyman doesn't there? The NRA isn't why we do not have more restrictive laws. The people are. The NRA is mostly funded by the people at that.
OK - so maybe scanning or capturing data on the internet could potentially violate your "right" to not be snooped on by the NSA - I get that, and I think it is a legitimate concern. However, I am sure that there are a lot of trends that would be apparent in most of the mass shooters internet behavior over the past decade i.e internet boards, angry Facebook rants etc. I mean, the FBI has stated that there is always a trail when you look back at the behavior of mass shooters - since they always plan this stuff out - it doesn't just happen on a whim. Couldn't we do something with that, and still allow you the freedom to use the internet how you please? Wouldn't you be OK with that if it meant preventing a possible mass shooting?
So you want to what? Prosecute? Arrest? Incarcerate people because someone behind a computer doesn't like what someone behind another computer said?
No, I do not support the restrictions of our rights under any circumstances. Many gave their lives protecting those rights and you just want to toss them away even though you can't show where your solutions would stop anything.
Someone like James Holmes may have crossed a line to where through due process they could have been forced into getting treatment. He was violent. He had made actual threats to others.
So you want to what? Prosecute? Arrest? Incarcerate people because someone behind a computer doesn't like what someone behind another computer said?
No, I do not support the restrictions of our rights under any circumstances. Many gave their lives protecting those rights and you just want to toss them away even though you can't show where your solutions would stop anything.
Someone like James Holmes may have crossed a line to where through due process they could have been forced into getting treatment. He was violent. He had made actual threats to others.
No - you misunderstand me. I am absolutely not suggesting arresting or prosecuting anyone for speech on the internet. Why would you go there? What I am suggesting is that James Holmes (and the other mass shooters in recent times) follow trending patterns online. Maybe all it would take is a professional reaching out, maybe just recognizing a mental illness (I mean, they all have some sort of mental illness right?) and treating that before they do the unthinkable..?
OK - so maybe scanning or capturing data on the internet could potentially violate your "right" to not be snooped on by the NSA - I get that, and I think it is a legitimate concern. However, I am sure that there are a lot of trends that would be apparent in most of the mass shooters internet behavior over the past decade i.e internet boards, angry Facebook rants etc. I mean, the FBI has stated that there is always a trail when you look back at the behavior of mass shooters - since they always plan this stuff out - it doesn't just happen on a whim. Couldn't we do something with that, and still allow you the freedom to use the internet how you please? Wouldn't you be OK with that if it meant preventing a possible mass shooting?
I've analysed your past posts and based on the APA profile I've determined you fit the profile of a possible serial killer. I've reported you to the authorities and your boss. I'm sure you're fine with this since it might prevent a future killing. Thanks for leaving a trail.
Ok, now to be serious, I've never read your posts and I'm not ok with it. If somebody is overtly threatening, action is warranted. Additionally, the NRA doesn't have a problem with doctors sharing mental health records with the Feds. It is the liberals who oppose the privacy violation. We have an expectation of privacy under the constitution. If some guy wants to rant against the government or rant against RWNJ's or rant against eating meat or abortion, or any other cause, that's his right. Those actions could result in political persecution. We know, absolute truth, that the IRS was targeting conservative groups. How easy it would be for the Feds to sweep in and use one's free speech against them to deny them other rights? That's a path I won't go down.
You don't like guns. It's your right to rally against them all you want in a peaceful manner. Some people are against abortion. Let them rant and protest. There are politicians on record, however, who have stated religious extremists are mentally ill. There are politicians who have stated liberalism is a mental disorder. I don't trust their judgment, do you?
No - you misunderstand me. I am absolutely not suggesting arresting or prosecuting anyone for speech on the internet. Why would you go there? What I am suggesting is that James Holmes (and the other mass shooters in recent times) follow trending patterns online. Maybe all it would take is a professional reaching out, maybe just recognizing a mental illness (I mean, they all have some sort of mental illness right?) and treating that before they do the unthinkable..?
Holmes was under the care of a professional. He was threatening her with harm and nothing was done about it.
I've analysed your past posts and based on the APA profile I've determined you fit the profile of a possible serial killer. I've reported you to the authorities and your boss. I'm sure you're fine with this since it might prevent a future killing. Thanks for leaving a trail.
Ok, now to be serious, I've never read your posts and I'm not ok with it. If somebody is overtly threatening, action is warranted. Additionally, the NRA doesn't have a problem with doctors sharing mental health records with the Feds. It is the liberals who oppose the privacy violation. We have an expectation of privacy under the constitution. If some guy wants to rant against the government or rant against RWNJ's or rant against eating meat or abortion, or any other cause, that's his right. Those actions could result in political persecution. We know, absolute truth, that the IRS was targeting conservative groups. How easy it would be for the Feds to sweep in and use one's free speech against them to deny them other rights? That's a path I won't go down.
You don't like guns. It's your right to rally against them all you want in a peaceful manner. Some people are against abortion. Let them rant and protest. There are politicians on record, however, who have stated religious extremists are mentally ill. There are politicians who have stated liberalism is a mental disorder. I don't trust their judgment, do you?
Fair response. Maybe it isn't a good idea - but at least we are discussing something other than just more regulation, or mental health! I am just thinking along the lines that these lunatics plan this stuff out and maybe there is something prior to their evil acts that would raise a flag. The NSA already tracks and records every phone call but only actually listens to them with permission from a court of rotating federal judges BUT I also hear the validity in your concerns above.
Fair response. Maybe it isn't a good idea - but at least we are discussing something other than just more regulation, or mental health!
Why is it that we shouldn't be talking about what seems to be the largest contributing factor?
Quote:
I am just thinking along the lines that these lunatics plan this stuff out and maybe there is something prior to their evil acts that would raise a flag. The NSA already tracks and records every phone call but only actually listens to them with permission from a court of rotating federal judges BUT I also hear the validity in your concerns above.
In nearly every case, people knew there was something wrong with the person who ended up doing the shooting.
Well, that is certainly something to be enormously concerned about. I still think there may be some validity in at least exploring how we could potentially recognize the threat of people like James Holmes before they act, but this does indeed expose a massive failure on the part of authorities to take the warning seriously.
What do you think should be done with this information?
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.
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.
What I am suggesting is that James Holmes (and the other mass shooters in recent times) follow trending patterns online. Maybe all it would take is a professional reaching out, maybe just recognizing a mental illness (I mean, they all have some sort of mental illness right?) and treating that before they do the unthinkable..?