Forums → WEPR → Gun control in the US
| 1089 | 401883 |
Discuss. General Tavern rules apply. (No mudslinging, be respectful, etc.)
I'll open with the statement that people should not have guns. No one at all, except the armed forces, and even then, keep the guns on the bases. Cops should carry riot shields and armor instead of guns. If they need crowd control, use Water Cannons.
Supporting evidence: the following skit:
What's your reason?
Setting: A gun shop, modern day.
A Customer walks into the gun shop and asks the Shopkeeper, "Hi, i'd like to buy a gun please."
The Shopkeeper pulls out an application form and asks the customer "Alright, what's your reason for wanting to buy a gun?"
The Customer says "I need one for personal protection."
The Shopkeeper nods. "I have just the thing for you, I guarantee you cannot get any more personal protection than this baby right here. What i'm about to show you offers so much protection, it can stop a shotgun shell."
The customer, very interested, stares at a full-size Riot Shield, the kind the police use. He scoffs. "That's not what I want, I want a gun!"
The Shopkeeper shrugs. "Are you sure? This fine piece of equipment will protect you more than a gun ever will! It's very strong, reinforced titanium and kevlar..." by now, the angry Customer has left.
Later, another Customer enters. "Hi, I need a gun."
Again, the Shopkeeper clicks his pen and pulls out an application form. "For what reason?" he asks.
The Customer hesitates, than says "Hunting."
The shopkeeper smiles. "Of course! I love to hunt. Hunting is a wonderful sport. I guarantee that this item will give you the maximum amount of satisfaction you can ever get from hunting! Here, this is the sport at its peak." And he pulls out a Crossbow, complete with crosshairs for better accuracy.
The customer shakes his head. "No, I want a gun." he states.
The shopkeeper reluctantly puts away the Crossbow. "Are you sure? With a gun, it's so...boring, just pulling a trigger. And it's unfair to the animal, with this you give the deer a chance and have to chase it for up to an hour, just like the Native Americans did back in the day! Unless of course..." He fails to finish his sentence, as the pissed off customer has left in a huff.
Later, a third customer walks in. "Hi, I'd like to buy a gun." he says.
The shopkeeper holds his pen at the ready. "For what reason, sir?" he asks.
The customer glares. "I dont need a reason, read the god **** second amendment "THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS." It's in the constitution you idiot!
The shopkeeper merely smiles. "Of course, I have the perfect thing for you. This gun is covered under Second Amendment laws, guaranteed!" And he holds up a 200-year-old, civil-war-era musket, complete with rusty bayonet.
The customer shrieks. "No, man! I want a Glock, a shotgun, something better than that civil war crap!"
The shopkeeper merely smiles. "I'm sorry sir, please come back when they update the second amendment to include those types of guns. Here, i'll even give you a discount..." the shopkeeper holds out a discount to the enraged customer, who tears it in half and leaves.
Fourthly, another Customer walks in. "I really need a gun, now." He says.
The Shopkeeper holds his pen and application form ready. "For what reason, sir?" he asks.
Instead of stating his reason this time, the Customer snatches the application form and looks at it. There, in the spot titled "Reasons" is a circle for "other".
"Other! That's my reason!" the Customer declares triumphantly.
The shopkeeper shrugs. "Very good answer sir." he says, while pressing a button under the counter. Two cops arrive at the shop in less than a minute and cuff the Customer.
"Hey! What the *PROFANITY* ARE YOU *PROFANITY* GUYS DOING? I'VE DONE NOTHING WRONG!" He yells, almost breaking the glass of the windows.
"Actually, you have." The Shopkeeper begins. "the "other" reason, by exclusion of the other reason, can only include wanting to kill or rob someone. Therefore, you were thinking about commiting a crime when you selected "Other" as your reason. Caught you red-handed, trying to buy the tools necessary to commiting a crime. You confessed to it when you selected "Other"! Take him downtown, please." The cops nod and take the Customer away. The last thing he hears from the Shopkeeper is "Oh, and I knew it was you all those times!"
Moral of the story: You do NOT need a gun for a particular activity. In any given activity (And I challenge you to give me a valid, legal activity for which you would need to personally own a gun), there are many other options. Why buy a gun for personal protection when a Riot Shield blocks shotgun shells? Why buy a gun for hunting when the point of hunting (and every other sport) is satisfaction, and since you get more satisfaction with more challenge, and since a crossbow offers more challenge than a gun, you'll get more satisfaction with the crossbow. Why buy a gun based on the Second Amendment when the Colonial-age guns were either giant cannons or black-powder, muzzle-loading Muskets? Did the Founding Fathers have AR-15's, and SPAZ-12 shotguns,And AK 47s, not to mention all the accessories like laser scopes and hollow-point bullets? I dont think so!
The only way you can disprove my argument is to give me a valid, LEGAL activity which requires you to personally own a gun. This excludes Skeet-shooting, because the facility can and should/will provide the gun. Until anyone can do that, YOU DONT NEED A GUN, NO ONE NEEDS GUNS! They're WAY too dangerous and make it too easy to kill someone! Why have something you dont need?
- 1,089 Replies
Can we get more specific with what mental illnesses would prohibit people from buying firearms?
The ones that result in violent behavior might make good candidates. Though I do agree it would have to be on a case by case basis.
Yeah, pretty sure him being autistic wasn't the reason why he shot some kids...
If he was autistic that would just make his shooting spree all the more odd.
If he was autistic that would just make his shooting spree all the more odd.
depends on what kind of autism he had. some can make them unreliable.
it's hard for me to explain it in english, so i wont try. i hope you understand it. or that someone els knows and can explain it for me.
One of Obama's executive orders states that doctors will be able to not only ask their patients if they or their family own any firearms, but they'll also be able to report that family to the government. I believe doctors should be allowed to ask whatever they want, but anything the patient says should remain between the doctor, the patient, and the patient's family ONLY with few exceptions.
isn't this going past the topic?
if you want a gun. then you should allow the government to check if you can handle a gun or that you might be a risk. you have to agree whit those terms if you want to have a gun.
i mean. if you drive a truck, then you have to do a medical examine every so long.. if you dont want to share the results of those tests then you can't drive the truck. thats just how it go's. why would it be different whit guns?
if you drive a truck, then you have to do a medical examine every so long.. if you dont want to share the results of those tests then you can't drive the truck.
Not sure if this is a real example or hypothetical. Either way, this is wrong.
A patient should be allowed to say whatever it is they need to say to their doctor without fear of getting in trouble or having to suffer some form of negative consequence. I see absolutely no reason why a doctor should tell the government whether a family owns a gun or not, because it's not the government's business. Honestly, I can't understand why a doctor would need to know such information in the first place, but I'll leave my mind open just in case there is a reason. After all, a doctor should be allowed to ask anything if they feel it will improve a person's health.
Their is zero reason for the government to know whether or not a patient has a gun. ZERO. The ONLY time a doctor should break patient confidentiality is if they feel their patient is on the verge of harming themselves or others. If a patient owns a gun, shows no signs of harming others, a doctor should not be allowed to disclose whether or not the patient owns a gun to the government.
Not sure if this is a real example or hypothetical
it is real for truckers that drive for there work. not for those for own use and hobby.
A patient should be
is it really a patient? he does the test by free will because he want to have a gun. he is not going to be helped about anything that might be wrong whit his body. he is just there to make a test required to own a gun.
everything outside this test does not have to be shared whit the government. only that what is tested. and what will be tested is said in the law. nothing more, nothing less.
I see absolutely no reason why a doctor should tell the government whether a family owns a gun or not, because it's not the government's business.
this question should indeed not be asked by a doctor but by a other test institute. i would think of the psychologist.
is it really a patient? he does the test by free will because he want to have a gun. he is not going to be helped about anything that might be wrong whit his body. he is just there to make a test required to own a gun.
everything outside this test does not have to be shared whit the government. only that what is tested. and what will be tested is said in the law. nothing more, nothing less.
Are we talking about regular check ups or check ups necessary to own a gun? I'm talking about regular check ups that aren't being done to own a gun.
I also see no reason why someone should waste money, time, and resources getting a check up just to see if they are capable of buying a gun. Can you even name situation where you wouldn't be allowed to have a gun because a doctor doesn't see you fit enough to do so? What would the criteria be? I can understand truckers having to be tested, to a degree, but even that's a bit redicilous.
depends on what kind of autism he had. some can make them unreliable.
Unreliable? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, but autism doesn't make people violent or psychotic.
Are we talking about regular check ups or check ups necessary to own a gun? I'm talking about regular check ups that aren't being done to own a gun.
I'm pretty sure that he's talking about going in specifically to take a mental health test as one prerequisite for owning a gun. Not some out of nowhere interrogation on whether you own a gun.
I also see no reason why someone should waste money, time, and resources getting a check up just to see if they are capable of buying a gun.
I can see plenty of reasons, ranging from the suicides committed with them to crimes where they are used. Of course, that wouldn't affect anything in which a gun was illegally obtained to begin with.
Can you even name situation where you wouldn't be allowed to have a gun because a doctor doesn't see you fit enough to do so?
Anger issues, extreme lack of inhibition, mental retardation, psychopathic episodes, maybe Parkinson's in later stages because they might pull the trigger accidentally, etc.
What would the criteria be?
If a person with said whatever would be able to responsibly and safely own a gun and could be reasonably trusted to not use it for crime or harming another person except in the case of self defense.
I can understand truckers having to be tested, to a degree, but even that's a bit redicilous.
...I really don't see eye to eye with your libertarian views. They're driving something that weighs anywhere from 20,000 lbs without a trailer, to 32,000 lbs with an empty trailer, to 80,000 lbs at maximum load. If the driver were to lose control and run into something, well, that wouldn't be pretty now would it? General health such as risk factors for heart attacks, seizures, migraines, vision, anything that would affect driving, is VERY serious. When you're going at 60-70 miles an hour on the highway, I don't think I need to explain the force behind an 60,000-70,000 lbs object.
I can see plenty of reasons, ranging from the suicides committed with them to crimes where they are used. Of course, that wouldn't affect anything in which a gun was illegally obtained to begin with.
I can see the problem with crimes, but if someone wants to kill themself and no one else, I would let them. Freedom of choice.
Anger issues, extreme lack of inhibition, mental retardation, psychopathic episodes, maybe Parkinson's in later stages because they might pull the trigger accidentally, etc.
Regarding our existing stance on gun laws (STRICT) I don't think we'll be letting idiots give idiots guns. The seller should be smart enough, and if not, he needs only give a little quiz. The Hippocratic Oath binds a doctor to confidentiality.
...I really don't see eye to eye with your libertarian views. They're driving something that weighs anywhere from 20,000 lbs without a trailer, to 32,000 lbs with an empty trailer, to 80,000 lbs at maximum load. If the driver were to lose control and run into something, well, that wouldn't be pretty now would it? General health such as risk factors for heart attacks, seizures, migraines, vision, anything that would affect driving, is VERY serious. When you're going at 60-70 miles an hour on the highway, I don't think I need to explain the force behind an 60,000-70,000 lbs object.
Society doesn't put idiots in charge of the big things. Actually, regarding politics, that's not true. But we usually don't put idiots in charge of practical things where the needed criteria is bloomingly obvious. It's like conscripting a blind and deaf man into the army; stupid.
General health such as risk factors for heart attacks, seizures, migraines, vision, anything that would affect driving, is VERY serious.
This is the part where I understand why truck drivers should have their health examined before they can drive on the road, but it's not something that should be reported to the government.
I can see plenty of reasons, ranging from the suicides committed with them to crimes where they are used.
A check up will not determine if someone is going to use their gun to commit crimes or suicide. Therefore, it's just a waste of time.
Anger issues, extreme lack of inhibition, mental retardation, psychopathic episodes, maybe Parkinson's in later stages because they might pull the trigger accidentally, etc.
The only thing more uncommon than people who have these problems are people who have these problems and want to buy a gun.
I can understand prohibiting sales of a firearm to someone who is mentally disabled or has parkinson's disease, but these will come up in a background check (especially mental retardation). 99.99% of people who get a check up to own a gun will pass. It's just not worth the time, money, and resources.
Unless we actually have a problem with the aforementioned people obtaining guns and doing harm with them, the checkups should be out of the question.
If a person with said whatever would be able to responsibly and safely own a gun and could be reasonably trusted to not use it for crime or harming another person except in the case of self defense.
The criteria that would prohibit someone from owning a gun would be so ridiculously rare, it's a non-issue. Anger issues is the most common, but even people with anger issues are seldom committing crimes.
Alright for one if a person is mentally unstable they shouldnt be able to have access to a gun period. If they are on any type of medicine for antidepression or anyting like that...no guns. Two, now gun shows do need background checks, that is the only thing i agree with on the whole thing. Other than that im completely against it. If you put a ban on guns, the crime rate is just gonna go up. Like with the drug wars we as taxpayers spend more money on taxes to pay for their services in jail like meals and t.v. and for them to carry out these drug raids and all. If you took the law away of no drugs and legalized it but controlled it...you have a lower crime rate. Just compare that to the gun control laws.
A check up will not determine if someone is going to use their gun to commit crimes or suicide. Therefore, it's just a waste of time.
But a background check of any mental illnesses might. For example, if a person wishing to purchase a gun suffers from chronically severe depression, or even severe manic depression, then that person is a risk to themselves and others. Even without a gun those with severe depression pose a risk to themselves.
mental retardation
I realize that term is what many Americans use, however I do infact find it offensive, I would prefer if you used something along the lines of hadicapped.
Unless we actually have a problem with the aforementioned people obtaining guns and doing harm with them, the checkups should be out of the question.
Perhaps I'm not following, but how does one know if someone is reasonably stable to own a gun if there is no primary background check.
If you put a ban on guns, the crime rate is just gonna go up.
Please, for the love of god stop saying this! No one here is suggesting we ban guns!
Are we talking about regular check ups or check ups necessary to own a gun? I'm talking about regular check ups that aren't being done to own a gun.are your regular checks that already happen. or regular checks that are done to see if the person should still be allowed to have a gun?
Can you even name situation where you wouldn't be allowed to have a gun because a doctor doesn't see you fit enough to do so?
i wouldn't give a gun to someone whit parkinson. or somnambulism. or
some other kind of disorder that could make it risky.
Unreliable? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, but autism doesn't make people violent or psychotic.
one of those things i dont know the right words to describe. thats why i didn't try. sorry.
I can see the problem with crimes, but if someone wants to kill themself and no one else, I would let them. Freedom of choice.
if your going to give that option, then you have to defend euthanasia. not gun controle. suicide is illegal in many countries.
The seller should be smart enough, and if not, he needs only give a little quiz.
right... you really think this is enough? why dont we just drop them across country like it happens in africa? GUNS FOR EVERYONE!!!!
But we usually don't put idiots in charge of practical things where the needed criteria is bloomingly obvious.
you dont know truckers then. xD
but it's not something that should be reported to the governmenta government organization hands out the driving license. they dont hand out the license if you did not pass the examine once.
i dont think they actually get to know the rapport of the test. just if they pass it yes or no. same can be done whit guns.
A check up will not determine if someone is going to use their gun to commit crimes or suicide.
a psychological test can determine suicide ideas.
a background check on friends, family and home/school/work surroundings can determine a risk that it will be used in a crime.
99.99% of people who get a check up to own a gun will pass.
then there is something wrong whit the checks.
It's just not worth the time, money, and resources.
think of the jobs that open up.
Unless we actually have a problem with the aforementioned people obtaining guns and doing harm with them, the checkups should be out of the question.
the checkups is part of the bureaucracy pain that can keep people from buying a gun. whitout them we might just aswell change nothing.
a psychological test can determine suicide ideas.
a background check on friends, family and home/school/work surroundings can determine a risk that it will be used in a crime.
People who are depressed aren't necisarily going to commit suicide. If a depressed person goes out of their way to get tested so they can buy a gun to kill themselves with, they will not act suicidal while being tested.
Tests can't reveal intentions.
Requiring people to go through tests before they're allowed to buy a gun would be as useful as the TSA, and that's to say, not useful at all.
As I said before, the only thing rarer than people with aforementioned issues are people with aforementioned issues trying to buy a gun. It's such an uncommon occurrence that we really don't have to worry about testing people to buy guns.
We tell someone they need to be tested before they buy a gun. All they have to do is not talk about killing anyone and they pass. Let's be honest, we might as well hand them a piece of paper and ask, "Do you plan on killing yourself or others?" and have a check box yes or no.
think of the jobs that open up.
I'm guessing you're pulling my leg.
Precisely. How can some idiotic check up prevent bad people getting guns? That argument has more holes than Swiss cheese.
You must be logged in to post a reply!