The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

[Lawman]

Yes, great point, and I admit that. Which is why I proposed above to have a uniform standard that applies to *everybody* without regard to location, race, religion, political view, sexual orientation, or this individual's personal belief on any of those things. It can't be too hard to define normal, or at the least, what is really non-normal. I think most people would agree all these mass shooters like Lanza, Cho, the Oregon school, Columbine, they were far from 'normal.'

Part of the problem falls on the parents, too. Like the Oregon shooter, the parent didn't even know their kid owned a gun. Not that it changes anything, but shows the disconnect between the generations. If parents raised kids with the love, support, and being there for them, most kids wouldn't grow up to resent/hate others and have a want to hurt others. But, then there's the mental chemical imbalance in which some things just misfire, and without proper medication, this person WILL have an episode. And one can only hope there is no gun around when that happens.

Ok if you don't like mass shootings how does your plan prevent San Bernardino or Chattanooga.

Both those were law abiding citizens.

You can keep trying to play Trump like some get out of civil rights violations free card. You want to and are calling for the curtailment of civil rights in order to insure preventative protection... Well the ugly statistical and constitutionally unethical way to stop violence like that is to restrict their access to firearms based solely off their religion. Seems to me violating not only 1 amendment as a society is bad enough but now we are talking about 2. (By the way I've voted for both parties have you? Fiscally conservative hawkish constitutional libertarian doesn't really have a major party)

The DSM V is a book the size of a phone book and takes multiple sessions and years of training to diagnose anybody with anything. So what simple clear cut test are you gonna develop? What questions will it ask? Because apparently you are going to rewrite psychiatric care in a way that can predefined mental illness before any doctor could. Good god man why are you wasting your time here.


So if we are gonna trample the rights of citizens to stop senseless deaths why not march into Chicago and forcibly enter door to door every house with a net income of less than say 125k a year. Your talking maybe 2.2 million people and confiscate all their firearms. Really you could probably just restrict it to whites below the poverty line and minorities and cut that number to 1.5 million. You just prevented some 2200 shootings and 460-500 homicides a head. And you did it with far less social impact than trying to arbitrate the civil rights of the 130 million legal gun owners in this country. And saved more lives than the statistical anomaly that is mass media play shootings at schools and public centers.

 

[pullup]

Well, if you want some sort of mental/psychological evaluation for pilots, ok, but so as long as there is a clear, defined path of what is to be expected, have one uniform standard that applies for everybody, and have a recourse available in case the diagnosis/doctor was incorrect.

And btw, the Germanwings FO saw several doctors and they deemed him bad enough that he shouldn't be working. There were also plenty of warnings in his flight training period, too. IMO Lufthansa Corp will be held liable big time for this failure to stop him.

I want cameras in cockpits where they can be accessed and monitored 24/7 with the ability to remote fly instantly if needed. I would feel so much safer and I would only be giving up a little privacy.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Ok if you don't like mass shootings how does your plan prevent San Bernardino or Chattanooga.

Both those were law abiding citizens.

You can keep trying to play Trump like some get out of civil rights violations free card. You want to and are calling for the curtailment of civil rights in order to insure preventative protection... Well the ugly statistical and constitutionally unethical way to stop violence like that is to restrict their access to firearms based solely off their religion. Seems to me violating not only 1 amendment as a society is bad enough but now we are talking about 2. (By the way I've voted for both parties have you? Fiscally conservative hawkish constitutional libertarian doesn't really have a major party)

The DSM V is a book the size of a phone book and takes multiple sessions and years of training to diagnose anybody with anything. So what simple clear cut test are you gonna develop? What questions will it ask? Because apparently you are going to rewrite psychiatric care in a way that can predefined mental illness before any doctor could. Good god man why are you wasting your time here.


So if we are gonna trample the rights of citizens to stop senseless deaths why not march into Chicago and forcibly enter door to door every house with a net income of less than say 125k a year. Your talking maybe 2.2 million people and confiscate all their firearms. Really you could probably just restrict it to whites below the poverty line and minorities and cut that number to 1.5 million. You just prevented some 2200 shootings and 460-500 homicides a head. And you did it with far less social impact than trying to arbitrate the civil rights of the 130 million legal gun owners in this country. And saved more lives than the statistical anomaly that is mass media play shootings at schools and public centers.

SB and CHA are terrorism events. Since 9/11, we've spend billions and billions of dollars, started 2 wars, created the DHS and TSA, and countless other things in order to help fight terrorism. Re: we actually did something instead of just sitting on our collective rear ends.

No offense, but if you are going to take guns away based on religion in the United States, then Islam wouldn't be the first religion to go.

I didn't say confiscation. People like you should be grandfathered in. Going forward, we need to emulate other modern, first world developed countries that DO have gun ownership. You are only ticked because it would "limit" your ability to have as many guns as you want. By defintion, it's called a fetish. What I imagine would still allow gun ownership, just not a gun fetish.

So which is it? You want guns to protect your family, or do you want guns because "Guns! Obama! Ma rights!" ?

If you truly feel that you NEED to have a gun to protect your family, and that your family's safety is most important, perhaps you should move to a safer place. And keep your gun, but you won't need to use it. Where I live, the chances of me getting killed in a random mass shooting are higher than me being shot in a home invasion. As I said, no one has been shot dead here in a couple decades.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Yes... Simply slapping the label of mentally ill on a prospective gun owner can have serious consequences for that person. They won't be able to hold security clearances, likely any DOT regulated job, or federal job for that matter. It would reach far beyond owning a gun.

The honest reality is that mental illness =\= predisposition to commit violence. Violent acts committed by most people undergoing treatment for mental diseases fall in line with the number of "normal" people who commit these acts.

There is no way to administer a test and then say ," you sir are going to kill people, no gun for you". The mind is not cut and dry like that.

Sadly, the reality is that most "normal" gun crime is committed by people who can be tied to similar social-economic groups. If you look at the epicenter a for gun crime, it will commonly correspond to areas with a recent (last 20 years) steep economic depression, massive job loss rates, high unemployment rates. These areas see a higher than normal amount of drug use and dependency, elevated violent crime rates, and usually lots of gang activity. Fortunately, the news generally doesn't give a rats ass about gang bangers killing gang bangers, so these shooting make the stats but not the news.

Fix the economy in these areas, bring the jobs back and guess what? Drug use goes down. Violent crime goes down, gun crime goes down. When people are worried about putting food on the table, keeping the heat on, and just surviving - "laws" really don't matter.

You aren't seriously implying Chicago's violence is this way because of a lack of food on the table and keeping the heat on? Come on now. It's gang on gang crime, and you are right, most people don't care about those deaths in shootings.

Yes, there is a precedent for a mental health eval. You can't be an officer or agent of the law in a full-time capacity without going a physical and mental evaluation. You have to pass both in order to be trusted to carry a weapon. It is ludicrous we can expect to put our potential LE officers and SAs through this and yet the average John Doe gets a free pass to carry his gun.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

I want cameras in cockpits where they can be accessed and monitored 24/7 with the ability to remote fly instantly if needed. I would feel so much safer and I would only be giving up a little privacy.

Remote fly a Boeing/Airbus technology doesn't exist. So I don't see how that's possible.

Besides, if flying scares you that much you don't have to fly. You can drive or take a boat or train. Guns don't scare me, but I'm not exactly comforted by the "average" citizen armed to the teeth. You see, when I'm walking down the street I'm unarmed and mean no one else harm. The same can't be said for those around me. So unlike flying, I don't have a choice here.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

An estimated 61.5 million Americans with some form of mental disease.

Rather than help you folks, we're just going to slap restrictions on you because I'm afraid.

As I said above, limiting rights due to mental illness wouldn't stand up for more than a second in court, unless you could already prove them to be a danger to society.

Seriously, go after the gang members and low income minorities. If we are going to discriminate, we might as well discriminate against those who are really the root problems with proven track records of violence and criminal activity.

I wanna go after those who committ mass shootings, and gang bangers aren't the suspects in this. Gang bangers kill other gang members, so most people really don't care. Those neighborhoods in Chicago is where BLM should really go, not block interstate highways.

 

[TUCKnTRUCK]

You aren't seriously implying Chicago's violence is this way because of a lack of food on the table and keeping the heat on? Come on now. It's gang on gang crime, and you are right, most people don't care about those deaths in shootings.

Yes, there is a precedent for a mental health eval. You can't be an officer or agent of the law in a full-time capacity without going a physical and mental evaluation. You have to pass both in order to be trusted to carry a weapon. It is ludicrous we can expect to put our potential LE officers and SAs through this and yet the average John Doe gets a free pass to carry his gun.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/il/chicago/crime/

Compare that with

http://www.richblockspoorblocks.com

Coincidence much?


Mental screening evaluations for LEO kind of proves the point, it doesn't catch them all, and lots that really don't need to be eliminated, are.

 

[pullup]

Remote fly a Boeing/Airbus technology doesn't exist. So I don't see how that's possible.

Besides, if flying scares you that much you don't have to fly. You can drive or take a boat or train. Guns don't scare me, but I'm not exactly comforted by the "average" citizen armed to the teeth. You see, when I'm walking down the street I'm unarmed and mean no one else harm. The same can't be said for those around me. So unlike flying, I don't have a choice here.

I don't have a choice, I can be walking down the street and a pilot can lawndart a plane right on my head. I'm not safe anywhere.

And psssst, the technology exists.

 

[z987k]

You do realize that districts change shape?

Guess not, yet you attempt to lecture me. So fitting.

Do you realize who draws them?

 

[TUCKnTRUCK]

I wanna go after those who committ mass shootings, and gang bangers aren't the suspects in this. Gang bangers kill other gang members, so most people really don't care. Those neighborhoods in Chicago is where BLM should really go, not block interstate highways.

Umm... Per FBI standards, gang bangers account a huge percentage of "mass" (more than 4 injured or killed) shooting victims.

The big news mass shooting are the minority.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/il/chicago/crime/

Compare that with

http://www.richblockspoorblocks.com

Coincidence much?


Mental screening evaluations for LEO kind of proves the point, it doesn't catch them all, and lots that really don't need to be eliminated, are.

Poverty breeds crime, true. So what is anyone doing? Just as soon as BLM cares about them in Chicago, I'm sure the rest of the country will follow.


Mental screening for LEOs proves the points, and EVEN then like you said, it doesn't catch them all..... now imagine having NO screening at all! That's a guaranteed way to not catch anything at all!

I don't have a choice, I can be walking down the street and a pilot can lawndart a plane right on my head. I'm not safe anywhere.

And psssst, the technology exists.

None of the suicidal plane crashes by pilots (that you are scared about) have hit an innocent person on the ground in the head. Germanwings hit a mountain without killing anyone on the ground. Egypt Air took it into the Ocean, and Silk Air into a river. In fact, of all recent airliner suicides by pilot, none ever killed anyone on the ground.

What technology can take over the Airbus I'm flying? There is no point of contact from the ground to the plane except ACARs, GoGo, transponder, etc.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Umm... Per FBI standards, gang bangers account a huge percentage of "mass" (more than 4 injured or killed) shooting victims.

The big news mass shooting are the minority.

Ok, yes, but as I alluded to before, it's still gang-on-gang violence. Most people don't care when one gangmember goes and kills another gangmember. They care a little bit when an innocent boy/girl dies by a stray bullet, but for the most part, people don't care about gang-on-gang crime. And it's not like BLM is protesting in these neighborhoods telling them to respect human life. So who's going to lead charge?

 

[TUCKnTRUCK]

Poverty breeds crime, true. So what is anyone doing? Just as soon as BLM cares about them in Chicago, I'm sure the rest of the country will follow.


Mental screening for LEOs proves the points, and EVEN then like you said, it doesn't catch them all..... now imagine having NO screening at all! That's a guaranteed way to not catch anything at all!



None of the suicidal plane crashes by pilots (that you are scared about) have hit an innocent person on the ground in the head. Germanwings hit a mountain without killing anyone on the ground. Egypt Air took it into the Ocean, and Silk Air into a river. In fact, of all recent airliner suicides by pilot, none ever killed anyone on the ground.

What technology can take over the Airbus I'm flying? There is no point of contact from the ground to the plane except ACARs, GoGo, transponder, etc.

Ok, Some autistic kids are violent. Does this mean every autistic person should have their rights stripped?

What mental flags should preclude gun ownership?

There is no established guideline, and there isn't a single psychiatrist that will tell you thy can accurately predict those who will become violent.

 

[TUCKnTRUCK]

Ok, yes, but as I alluded to before, it's still gang-on-gang violence. Most people don't care when one gangmember goes and kills another gangmember. They care a little bit when an innocent boy/girl dies by a stray bullet, but for the most part, people don't care about gang-on-gang crime. And it's not like BLM is protesting in these neighborhoods telling them to respect human life. So who's going to lead charge?

The people focusing on the guns should stop chasing the symptoms of the problem, and work on getting the economy going. Wasn't this Obama's " Change".

 

[TUCKnTRUCK]

it's not like BLM is protesting in these neighborhoods telling them to respect human life. So who's going to lead charge?

I do my part to help the local economy. I buy American made guns and supplies from my local gun shop

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

The people focusing on the guns should stop chasing the symptoms of the problem, and work on getting the economy going. Wasn't this Obama's " Change".

Obama's change was hampered by certain people who to this day still question his birth place and religion.

And the guns are a problem. That's why other modern first world progressive countries found a way to still provide legal gun ownership but in a very regulated and restricted manner.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Ok, Some autistic kids are violent. Does this mean every autistic person should have their rights stripped?

What mental flags should preclude gun ownership?

There is no established guideline, and there isn't a single psychiatrist that will tell you thy can accurately predict those who will become violent.

No, just the violent ones.

 

[TUCKnTRUCK]

Ok, yes, but as I alluded to before, it's still gang-on-gang violence. Most people don't care when one gangmember goes and kills another gangmember. They care a little bit when an innocent boy/girl dies by a stray bullet, but for the most part, people don't care about gang-on-gang crime. And it's not like BLM is protesting in these neighborhoods telling them to respect human life. So who's going to lead charge?

Take guns away from 1-2 ethnic groups, and, suddenly our gun crime rates fall in to similar rates around the world.

There is your solution.

(I am NOT advocating that we do this)


Mental health check for gun ownership isn't going to do much of anything.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Take guns away from 1-2 ethnic groups, and, suddenly our gun crime rates fall in to similar rates around the world.

There is your solution.

(I am NOT advocating that we do this)


Mental health check for gun ownership isn't going to do much of anything.

True. But "those two" groups are mostly killing each other in gang related violence. That's the bulk of their numbers. Mass shootings in schools, malls, theaters, are predominantly white gun shooters though.

 

[TUCKnTRUCK]

True. But "those two" groups are mostly killing each other in gang related violence. That's the bulk of their numbers. Mass shootings in schools, malls, theaters, are predominantly white gun shooters though.

Mass shooting account for less than 1% of gun deaths. Why focus on such a small subset? Your pushing for change that will have no effect.

And - I do not want to remove guns from people based off any "demographics".

Get those people the help they need, jobs and economy to live, and the gun rates will fall