quade 4 #151 February 23, 2013 Government is limited. What you seem to be obsessed with advocating is anarchy. Societies based on anarchy don't last long.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #152 February 23, 2013 Quote> Get drunk and crash your car; you will find yourself detained against your will and you can observe the process in action. We have an entire legal system erected to allow the government to do that (and to preventing government abuse of that power.) So far we have not put the effort into setting up a similar system for people who are a psychiatric risk; we've been too lazy. we should model it similar to the system that protects us before someone gets drunk and crashes a car? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 5 #153 February 23, 2013 QuoteGovernment is limited. What you seem to be obsessed with advocating is anarchy. Societies based on anarchy don't last long. This seriously deserves a personal attack. Shaking Head. Sigh... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #154 February 23, 2013 QuoteThe rules are set up that until a person commits an act of violence, it is assumed that he or she will not. this is considered idiotic, short term and cheap apparently - and insane ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldwomanc6 60 #155 February 23, 2013 QuoteQuoteGovernment is limited. What you seem to be obsessed with advocating is anarchy. Societies based on anarchy don't last long. This seriously deserves a personal attack. Shaking Head. Sigh... No PA, just the observation that Societies based on anarchy aren't, strictly speaking, societies. Shaking head as well.lisa WSCR 594 FB 1023 CBDB 9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 5 #156 February 23, 2013 QuoteQuoteThe rules are set up that until a person commits an act of violence, it is assumed that he or she will not. this is considered idiotic, short term and cheap apparently - and insane Actually... that's not fully true. The rules are set up for; innocent until proven guilty. In the state of Virginia, you can call your wife a "cuntless fuck", which is not obscene per statutory law. But making a threat, is, illegal. But again... innocent until proven guilty. And our Republic was setup for "a moral and virtuous people." - George Washington A threat, in the criminal context, is recognized to be a communication avowing an intent to injure another’s person or property. - Wise v. Com., 49 Va. App. 344, 641 S.E.2d 134. Virginia Courts must consider a communication in its particular context when determining whether a speaker’s words constitute a true threat. - Id. The Court, as a result, must view the totality of the circumstances under which the statement was made. - DiMaio v. Com., 46 Va. App. 755, 621 S.E.2d 696. And... Cuntless Fuck: http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/1349082.pdf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #157 February 23, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe rules are set up that until a person commits an act of violence, it is assumed that he or she will not. this is considered idiotic, short term and cheap apparently - and insane Actually... that's not fully true. er....my post was a bit tongue in cheek. I'll add smileys next time ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,144 #158 February 23, 2013 QuoteQuote > The field of psychiatry/psychology does not exist to protect the public welfare. It in part does, just as doctors exist in part to protect the public welfare. Quarantines, for example, do not protect a patient - they protect society at large. In the case of psychiatry the standard is a reasonable likelihood that they will injure themselves (that's protecting the patient) or others (that's protecting society.) >I am not comfortable with some "professional" deciding on their own that you don't >have your rights anymore. Any cop who pulls you over can decide that right now. >More to the point, have you been able to find any "professionals" who claim they >can predict danger . . . . Of course. Pilots deciding whether to fly through a storm. Cops deciding whether to arrest a drunk. An AFF-I deciding whether a student is too clueless to continue in skydiving. Does that mean that a pilot can tell you "I will guarantee you that if we fly through that storm it will tear our wings off?" Nope. But he can predict that there is a likelihood that there will be a problem - and wisely decides to take a different path. You like to continue arguing a point, around, the points that I make regarding foundational principles.... of Limited Government. You and many others need to take my post: DEFINED: LIMITED GOVERNMENT... read that, and than fit every issue you have within those principles. Like your arguments above... this is progressive type critical thinking to subvert the structure of the Republic; trying to allow the Federal Government to do things it has no right to be involved in. If you start with Limited Government, nothing you state makes sense. Somalia has limited government. I guess you'd like to live there.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #159 February 23, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteBecause you are AGAIN making the flippant connection that "mentally ill = violent." Or "mentally ill = dangerous." Negative. Please do a thorough search and quote where I've ever said anything even remotely like that. No. There is a multi-dimension range of mental illness and I've never said all were violent. I've never even suggested it. However, there is, without a doubt in my mind a slice of mental illness that can be diagnosed as having violent tendencies. There is another slice where they simply do not know the difference between reality and fantasy. There is another slice who get sexually aroused by the sight of small children. There is a collection of slices which includes these and others that are not fit to own a weapon of any sort because of the danger they pose to society. So You can identify them? No. I'd leave that to the professionals. I've said so in the past. As a society, we leave it up to professionals to determine if people are fit for any one of a number of tasks. Why would this be any different? I've heard the professionals, and the ones I've heard say they cannot predict who will carry out mass murder. To give an example. Many children are bullied. Some children who are bullied grow up to get a gun, go to school, and shoot up a bunch of others because either they bullied the kid specifically or they didn't stop the kid from being bullied. Let's say that it's one in a hundred bullied kids that does this for sake of argument. The professionals say that while most or many school shooters may fit this profile, most kids who fit this profile do not grow up to do this. So you are ok with taking the rights away from the 99 out of 100 bullied students, in order to prevent the 1 out of 100 who might try to carry out a mass murder? All the professionals I've heard talk about this say the same thing. Many or most shooters have some characteristics. But many many people in society also have those same characteristics, and most do NOT go get a gun and shoot up a school. So for a professional, absent evidence that a shooter has already begun to form a plan and carry it out (ie made threats, made maps of a target, bought or made weapons) it is pretty much impossible to form an accurate assessment that the subject will or will not be violent. In Aurora, the shooter actually had started making plans and buying guns, and it seems the psychiatrist was aware of this, notifying campus security BUT NOT THE POLICE. If she'd notified police, perhaps the shooting could have been avoided. But generally, such mental health professionals, like medical professionals don't want to take away people's rights unless they absolutely sure there is immenent threat.If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,144 #160 February 23, 2013 So you claim that the right of 100 loonies to have guns outweighs the right of a child not to be shot dead by a looney with a gun?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #161 February 23, 2013 Quote So you claim that the right of 100 loonies to have guns outweighs the right of a child not to be shot dead by a looney with a gun? so you claim you'd lock up 99 kids for the vague chance that the 100th is a violent looney. (I think the 1 in a 100 was just for discussion purposes....if 1 in a 100 kids that are bullied acts out violently, we'd have a shooting a week in each school - so really, you are advocating locking up 999,999 innocents to maybe protect 1 - the concept of your argument still applies, but let's get the scale clear) How do you pay for all these panels of 'experts' that don't want to make the decision? If some professional was on the panel and they actually desired to hold the power to restrict people that otherwise have done nothing yet, wouldn't you be scared of that type of person in that kind of position? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #162 February 23, 2013 Nobody is saying "lock up." What they're saying is, don't give the 100 loonies access to guns.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #163 February 23, 2013 Quote So you claim that the right of 100 loonies to have guns outweighs the right of a child not to be shot dead by a looney with a gun? I think the point I was trying to make is that 99 out of the 100 aren't necessarily loonies. But I guess you missed that. Maybe you would be more at home somewhere where you can lock up whoever doesn't think the way you do.If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #164 February 23, 2013 Nobody is saying "lock up." Where are you getting that from?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #165 February 23, 2013 QuoteNobody is saying "lock up." What they're saying is, don't give the 100 loonies access to guns. As I said, in the example, the point was that 99 out the hundred might not be loonies. In fact, some people might argue that even someone who had sort of fleshed out a plan (say in the guise of a fiction assignment, etc.) or gotten ahold of weapons, might not necessarily carry out any attacks on society, and therefore not merit losing any rights. That has happened many times as well. And again, how long do you bar their access? 5 years? 10 years? Life?If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #166 February 23, 2013 QuoteNobody is saying "lock up." What they're saying is, don't give the 100 loonies access to guns. 1 - just because a kid is bullied is not grounds to call him a loonie and deny him the ability to purchase stuff as an adult. Even Kallend's scenario only said one of the hundred turned out bad. Though he would deny the 99 certain rights to contain the 1. But even he didn't just blanket decide all 100 were loonies. 2 - also, I'm not 'giving' any kid access to guns. But, when they become legal adults, it's not my business to decide what they buy (even if they were bullied at some point) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #167 February 23, 2013 QuoteAs I said, in the example, the point was that 99 out the hundred might not be loonies. In fact, some people might argue that even someone who had sort of fleshed out a plan (say in the guise of a fiction assignment, etc.) or gotten ahold of weapons, might not necessarily carry out any attacks on society, and therefore not merit losing any rights. That has happened many times as well. And again, how long do you bar their access? 5 years? 10 years? Life? apparently the process is as follows: 1 - someone admits they were bullied, or it's observed and reported to the authorities. Or bullies create a database of people they pick on and he's on the list 2 - the person is then separated from society and his guns are taken away 3 - a "panel" of (apparently) power hungry "experts" sit in judgement on this individual and decide if he gets to have guns or not. it is unknown if these experts were or were not bullied as children 4 - someone has to pay for this 5 - individual thanks society for protecting society from himself It's not even thought police. It's "what I might imagine you are thinking" police. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,144 #168 February 23, 2013 Bill, Do you think the many mass shootings by mentally ill people that we've seen in recent years are a problem or not? If not, why not? If so, what do YOU think can be done to ameliorate the problem? (Note that I'm not asking for a guarantee for it to be eliminated altogether)?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #169 February 23, 2013 QuoteIf so, what do YOU think can be done to ameliorate the problem? (Note that I'm not asking for a guarantee for it to be eliminated altogether)? I'm not sure it can be without significant trampling on the blameless. However.... I like the idea of a 'license to purchase'. In MN we have the sheriff review a questionaire and do a quick background check to authorize handgun purchases from dealers. Dealer still calls in to check to see if it's valid during a purchase I think. 1 - I'd think it should be expanded to any firearm purchase. 2 - the dealer call in is stupid and should be canceled. All it does is signal pending purchase for something already authorized. If the buyer has committed a felony since issuance of the license, then the permit would be taken away anyway. Other than that, maybe renew annually. 3 - Once the permit is issued. The buyer should be able to buy zero guns, or a thousand - no reason to register or track. He's qualified. Again, if heis GUILTY of committing a violent felony, then his guns are confiscated anyway - . It really isn't any business of the government to know what property I own if I'm law abiding. one other thing I'd add - I think the license should come with a proof of gun safety knowledge. Either answer a quiz, proof they took a course ie certified (not needed if dad did a good job teaching it - thus the quiz), etc. It should also have questions about storage, handling, and transport too. Gun safety is VERY simple, even demonstration and discussion. lastly - private sales should require the permit too. but I see no consistent way to enforce or monitor it. so that just an impotent gesture, but it'll mean something to honest people that do follow the law - they'll ask to see the permit. Gun safety should be offered in school and suffice as certification. Other than improving the general public's knowledge of firearms and taking away the hollywood mystic. these wouldn't fix your loony issue at all. nor would it fix illegal acts. Nothing will really. But it would give the law abiding citizen good grounds for ownership. As for 'loonies', I think it's a false trail. If someone commits a felony, then they are a felon and their rights are ended. That goes for sane as well as loonies, so it's already in place. IF someone is really a 'possible threat' due to loonie behavior, well....maybe the training and licensing of the public in more thorough fashion about guns will make people more aware of local laws and good practices about (as I said, handling, transport, and storage) - and make it a bit harder for the loonie to at least take away someone else's gun. And to be more aware of when others abuse the right. (I want us to watch out for each other, not watch over each other - there's a real difference there) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #170 February 23, 2013 QuoteDo you think the many mass shootings by mentally ill people that we've seen in recent years are a problem or not? any time people are killed it's a problem - whether by mentally ill, or fanatics, or even by accident it also makes good press the question isn't whether it needs to be addressed, it's about the current ideas on the table and whether they are pointless political gestures, or truly effective. I've seen nothing to date from the usual suspects that's more than skin deep. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,144 #171 February 23, 2013 Thanks, sensible ideas. About the only disagreement I have is that I'd like a more pro-active (ugh, horrid word) identification of deranged people.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #172 February 24, 2013 Quote Thanks, sensible ideas. About the only disagreement I have is that I'd like a more pro-active (ugh, horrid word) identification of deranged people. Agree regarding Bill's thoughts. And I, too, would like if we were better at IDing deranged people before something bad happened, but I'm going to be very skeptical of any proposed way of doing this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #173 February 24, 2013 Gee, Prof. Yoj love comparisons like "are you saying that a child is better off with three homosexual pederast alcoholic heroin junkie registered sex offender convicted child abuser HIV positive adoptive parents with gambling problems than a loving compassionate heterosexual couple?" Well, gee, when you put it in those terms who could argue? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #174 February 24, 2013 Quote Bill, Do you think the many mass shootings by mentally ill people that we've seen in recent years are a problem or not? If not, why not? If so, what do YOU think can be done to ameliorate the problem? (Note that I'm not asking for a guarantee for it to be eliminated altogether)? With perhaps a few exceptions, the majority of gun deaths since newtown have probably been gangbangers, drug incidents or robberies. Are we to assume that all gangbangers are insane because in their world things are settled with guns? In their world, settling things with guns could probably be termed 'normal'.If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #175 February 24, 2013 Quote Are we to assume that all gangbangers are insane well, it depends ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
