kelpdiver 2 #51 April 7, 2009 Quote Do you like the way the airline "no fly" list is working to keep suspected terrorists off of airplanes? Yes, that is a good analog to this fuzzy proposal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #52 April 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat's your proposal? A common-sense proposal is to require something stronger than self-certification of sanity when buying a gun. We already have that. If a person has been found to be mentally unstable by a judge, then he can't buy a gun. Most states already put those findings on the gun prohibition database. Good for "most states". And what about people who move to new states? What about states that don't bother? What fraction of the mentally ill go before a judge for adjudication of their condition, John? The utter failure of the current system (which you think is wonderful) is shown by SIX mass shootings in the past month. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #53 April 7, 2009 Quote The utter failure of the current system (which you think is wonderful) is shown by SIX mass shootings in the past month. I'm not sure bundling in the two incidents with cops should be done, but whatever. Yes, you have 53 deaths involving 6 people. Bear in mind that the Oakland shootings had nothing to do with mental health. That was just a 3 strike loser who was going to be jailed for life. But if the yearly stats are evenly distributed, there would be close to a 1000 deaths this month, so these 53 are a tiny portion of normal. Are they more significant because they were MASS (OMG! Scary!) shootings as opposed to one by one? My answer - yes. I don't really care too much when one felon kills another, and those represent a rather large portion of the total. These shootings involved cops and people that would be accurately described as victims. So all 6 should be examined carefully for failures in process, or for potential process improvement. That means doing more than just bleating - "the systems is broken! Do something, anything." Emotional responses rarely lead to productive fixes. It's clear that the Oakland SWAT needs to change their strategies, and other PDs should review their's as well. I'm not sure the motorcycle officers did anything wrong - as a LEO here wrote, the rules of the game are a bit unfair for them. They have unsafe rules of engagement until the first shot is fired. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #54 April 7, 2009 QuoteWhat fraction of the mentally ill go before a judge for adjudication of their condition, John? Do you want people to be denied constitutional rights without an official court hearing to protect their rights and give them fair due process? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #55 April 7, 2009 QuoteQuote The utter failure of the current system (which you think is wonderful) is shown by SIX mass shootings in the past month. I'm not sure bundling in the two incidents with cops should be done, but whatever. Yes, you have 53 deaths involving 6 people. . It's now FOUR mass shootings since March 30, SEVEN in the last month. www.timesdaily.com/article/20090407/NEWS/904079990?Title=Four-dead-in-Greenhill-shooting-search-on-for-Morgan-County-man Not to worry, our system works just fine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #56 April 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteWhat fraction of the mentally ill go before a judge for adjudication of their condition, John? Do you want people to be denied constitutional rights without an official court hearing to protect their rights and give them fair due process? What judge protected the rights of the innocent victims of the FOUR gunmen who perpetrated mass shootings in the last 9 days? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #57 April 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat fraction of the mentally ill go before a judge for adjudication of their condition, John? Do you want people to be denied constitutional rights without an official court hearing to protect their rights and give them fair due process? What judge protected the rights of the innocent victims of the FOUR gunmen who perpetrated mass shootings in the last 9 days? So for you, it's fine when we put 100 people in jail, 5 of whom are innocent? Better for us all to make sure we don't miss anyone, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #58 April 7, 2009 Slob, Quade and Jerryzflies are all ok with prosecuting anyone they do not agree with, eroding civil rights(except their own) and arresting anyone they deem dangerous regardless of the actual evidence required to do so. EXCEPT WHEN IT IS THEM OR THEIR RIGHTS BEING INFRINGED. Thomas Jefferson might have just beaten them into pulp for offering to give away everything he fought so hard for us to retain. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #59 April 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhat fraction of the mentally ill go before a judge for adjudication of their condition, John? Do you want people to be denied constitutional rights without an official court hearing to protect their rights and give them fair due process? What judge protected the rights of the innocent victims of the FOUR gunmen who perpetrated mass shootings in the last 9 days? So for you, it's fine when we put 100 people in jail, 5 of whom are innocent? Better for us all to make sure we don't miss anyone, right? Is a straw man the best you can do? Hard to defend so many homicidal nutters in just one month, isn't it?If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #60 April 8, 2009 Let Capt Slog answer for himself. We already know you won't answer the question at hand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,100 #61 April 8, 2009 >Do you want people to be denied constitutional rights without an official >court hearing to protect their rights and give them fair due process? If they want to start a religion that requires human sacrifice - yes. If they want to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater - yes. If they are schizophrenic, and want to buy a gun to kill all the secret agents after them - yes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #62 April 8, 2009 Quote>Do you want people to be denied constitutional rights without an official >court hearing to protect their rights and give them fair due process? If they want to start a religion that requires human sacrifice - yes. If they want to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater - yes. If they are schizophrenic, and want to buy a gun to kill all the secret agents after them - yes. How do you know these facts in advance, without a court hearing? You don't. So then you're talking about prior restraint. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #63 April 8, 2009 QuoteHow do you know these facts in advance, without a court hearing? You don't. So then you're talking about prior restraint. What scares me even more than the mass murderers, are these gun-o-phobe brown shirts who would round up all gun owners and put them in concentration camps, to protect the public. Their solution is worse than the problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #64 April 8, 2009 Yes, this is a case where it is quite appropriate to refer to their phobia. The probability that they'll encounter these gun nuts is quite low, like the risk of being eaten by a shark. But they worry more about it than they do the loss of their freedoms, which will affect millions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #65 April 8, 2009 QuoteYes, this is a case where it is quite appropriate to refer to their phobia. The probability that they'll encounter these gun nuts is quite low, like the risk of being eaten by a shark. Another one And another one How many is that in just THIS LAST WEEK?If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #66 April 8, 2009 Maybe you should stay inside and build a panic room to keep you safe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #67 April 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteHow do you know these facts in advance, without a court hearing? You don't. So then you're talking about prior restraint. What scares me even more than the mass murderers, are these gun-o-phobe brown shirts who would round up all gun owners and put them in concentration camps, to protect the public. Their solution is worse than the problem. Being unable to come up with actual justification for allowing easy access to guns by the mentally ill, all you can resort to is straw men.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #68 April 8, 2009 QuoteYes, this is a case where it is quite appropriate to refer to their phobia. The probability that they'll encounter these gun nuts is quite low, like the risk of being eaten by a shark. But they worry more about it than they do the loss of their freedoms, which will affect millions. You are now claiming that there are millions of mentally ill people with guns? And you support this?If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #69 April 8, 2009 QuoteBeing unable to come up with actual justification for allowing easy access to guns by the mentally ill, all you can resort to is straw men. Speaking of strawmen... are you actually going to SUGGEST anything, or just keep beating YOUR strawman to death?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #70 April 8, 2009 QuoteLet Capt Slog answer for himself. We already know you won't answer the question at hand. You act as though someone suggested confiscating all guns and putting their owners in concentration camps. The only suggestion that's been made is to more rigorously enforce the EXISTING restrictions on mentally unstable people. Restrictions that are, incidentally, supported by the NRA. Your straw man arguments are not helping your case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #71 April 8, 2009 Quote The only suggestion that's been made is to more rigorously enforce the EXISTING restrictions on mentally unstable people. Restrictions that are, incidentally, supported by the NRA. No, the suggestion is that something (unspecified) must be done to ensure this doesn't happen. Since the gun control movement has never been about enforcing current laws (Brady checks for example), it's fair to assume that the unspecified improvement will be a doozy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #72 April 8, 2009 QuoteQuote The only suggestion that's been made is to more rigorously enforce the EXISTING restrictions on mentally unstable people. Restrictions that are, incidentally, supported by the NRA. No, the suggestion is that something (unspecified) must be done to ensure this doesn't happen. Since the gun control movement has never been about enforcing current laws (Brady checks for example), it's fair to assume that the unspecified improvement will be a doozy. Your straw man arguments do not help your case. QuoteSo for you, it's fine when we put 100 people in jail, 5 of whom are innocent? Better for us all to make sure we don't miss anyone, right? Neither do JR's. www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3535486#3535486 Neither do Warpedskydiver's www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3535242#3535242 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #73 April 8, 2009 I have an idea, you could move to a place hwere guns are not allowed. Since you cannot get the second amendment repealed why not do the next best thing if you have such strong convictions? Speaking of convictions are you perhaps a felon? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #74 April 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteYes, this is a case where it is quite appropriate to refer to their phobia. The probability that they'll encounter these gun nuts is quite low, like the risk of being eaten by a shark. But they worry more about it than they do the loss of their freedoms, which will affect millions. You are now claiming that there are millions of mentally ill people with guns? And you support this? There are millions of veterans. And tens of millions that seek mental health care, millions of who are given drugs to take. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #75 April 8, 2009 QuoteI have an idea, you could move to a place hwere guns are not allowed. Since you cannot get the second amendment repealed why not do the next best thing if you have such strong convictions? Speaking of convictions are you perhaps a felon? YET ANOTHER STRAW MAN. No-one has suggested repealing the 2nd Amendment. The suggestion is properly enforcing existing restrictions on the mentally disturbed. Since you're so worried about checking, are you mentally disturbed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
