Shotgun
-
Content
8,899 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by Shotgun
-
Interesting article on mass murder: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090406/ap_on_re_us/mass_shootings_why;_ylt=AuPPaEXnI3P8TuBteHu2prZbIwgF Yet it doesn't offer much insight into "what can be done." "Typically, mass murderers have no criminal record or history of psychiatric treatment . . ."
-
It varies by state, but I don't think that either one entitles a same-sex couple to any federal rights/benefits regarding marriage. I think, as riddler said, equality is one of the main things. And it's good that we now have four states that recognize same-sex marriage, but I don't think it will really be "equal" until it is recognized at the federal level.
-
No other state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage (or even a civil union, I believe) from another state. The Defense of Marriage Act covers this.
-
Sounds like this is a part of the system that didn't work too well: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090407/ap_on_re_us/pittsburgh_shooting
-
His mental stability. After so many issues, somewhere along the line he should have been mentally disqualified. I tend to agree with you, Paul, but I can't quite figure out at which point he should have been "mentally disqualified." There was the tray-throwing, which got him discharged from the military but didn't seem to include a conviction. And then there was an alleged assault, which also apparently had no conviction, but it did lead to a protection from abuse order, which he then violated. I lean towards thinking that the point where he violated the protection from abuse order being the point where he should have had his rights to firearm possession taken away. Is that what you're thinking? Or are you thinking that he should have had them taken away before that?
-
The problem then is not guns. It's the justice system which considers such an assault to be only a misdemeanor. Make it a felony, and then the already existing no-gun prohibition is in effect. Don't be silly, John. The obvious answer in this case is to outlaw trays.
-
After reading a little bit more about this story, and about the PA gun laws, it sounds like he was right on the edge of not being able to legally own firearms (assuming that he did have them legally). It sounds like the dishonorable discharge would have prevented him from getting a concealed carry license but not from simply possessing a gun. And apparently the "protection from abuse" order would have kept him from owning firearms only if the order specifically "provided for the confiscation of firearms during the period of time the order is in effect." So I am assuming that it wasn't deemed necessary when the order was issued to confiscate his guns, though it would make sense to me that once he violated that order that maybe they should have changed it to provide for confiscation. Anyhow, I'm not sure I see much (if anything) that could be changed about the law to make it better.
-
Yes, it might stop some. And I'll agree that in this case, with this guy's history, he should not have been allowed to legally have possession of guns. I sort of doubt that licensing would have _stopped_ this guy from having guns, but I do agree that he should not have legally had them. I was more concerned with the idea that "mentally disturbed" people should not have guns, because that's a pretty broad category. But it sounds like this guy had an actual violent criminal record.
-
Pretty sure you really don't wanna know, but it includes licensing. I really do want to know, and I'm really curious what sort of licensing is going to completely prevent "mentally disturbed" people from obtaining guns. I'm also curious which "mentally disturbed" people would not be allowed to have guns and who would get to decide this.
-
What do you think we could do to absolutely ensure that "mentally disturbed" people are never in possession of guns?
-
_Do_ we act on the tendency more? (Honest question; I really don't know.) If that is the case, I don't know the answer. But I tend to doubt that overly-strict gun regulation is the answer. (Not saying that you're suggesting it is.)
-
The majority of the U.S. population is not ready to pick up a gun and shoot someone. I know that we have more gun violence than other countries, and I'm not sure why that is. Perhaps it has something to do with our history and the widespread availability of guns, but I don't see that as something that can really be changed. I think that people who have a tendency toward violence will find one way or another whether guns are available or not. I believe that we actually have more alcohol-related deaths in this country than firearm-related deaths, so I find it interesting that we have so many people calling for more regulation of guns, yet very few people calling for more regulation of alcohol. I guess it has to do with the more newsworthy gun incidents and the fact that there are a lot more people who drink alcohol than there are who own guns.(?)
-
Perhaps that is the common fantasy in Speakers Corner (I don't know), but I don't know a single gun owner who owns a gun because they think they're going to stop a mass murder someday. "Self-defense" usually seems to mean guarding one's own home/family/property/self, and I don't think most gun owners have any illusion of a guarantee of even this protection just because they have a gun.
-
I believe the dead cops WERE armed with guns and were properly trained in their use (unlike many civilians). Didn't seem to help them. When I said "personal firearm" I was referring to civilians with firearms, not police. (I assumed this thread was referring to the shooting in NY, and that skyrad was referring to civilians arguing for their rights to own firearms to defend themselves(?).) But regarding the guy shooting the cops and their guns not helping them, I think there are _far_ more cases where guns do help the police.
-
Texting while driving - CA woman sentenced to prison for fatal crash
Shotgun replied to Shotgun's topic in Speakers Corner
I know. It seems that there were a couple of months after the law went into effect that I noticed fewer people doing this, but now it seems to be right back to how it was before it was illegal. (And I notice these people because they're often driving in a manner that makes me notice them.) I don't know if it's just not being enforced, or if the fine is so low that no one cares? Anyhow, I'm wondering if this case will make people pay a little more attention to the law. -
Just because someone didn't stop a _mass shooting_ with a personal firearm does not mean that there are not other times when people do actually defend themselves with a personal firearm.
-
Texting while driving - CA woman sentenced to prison for fatal crash
Shotgun replied to Shotgun's topic in Speakers Corner
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090404/ap_on_re_us/text_crash -
Um, I think it was the Lord in that song, but it's all the same to me.
-
Funny, I was singing along with "Satan, Lend me a Dollar" when I read this. How fitting for a religious thread.
-
Well, if you were a Unitarian that wouldn't matter. I think I might be a Unitarian (Universalist, that is), but I still want to know what he meant.
-
"Believing" or "not believing" what?
-
Perhaps. I just think you mis-read John's question. But then I think he may have inferred more from the article than what was actually meant. I think he interpreted it to mean that all couples who participate in _S&M_ are more intimate than all of the other couples who don't, and of course that is not true.
-
Calculus. Lots and lots of calculus. Now don't anyone be jealous.
-
The rest of your answer seems to contradict the "yep." I don't think JohnRich meant "those who believe in not hurting their partner" to mean "those who do nothing sexually with a partner that they both enjoy."
-
Looks like it was skybytch. Damn, I should probably delete all of those old PM's. They've stacked up over the years.