eyeball Posted January 1, 2012 Report Posted January 1, 2012 The problem with your view is that terrorists seek to disrupt normal societal and governmental functions. It is because of certain of the public safety measures (and I don't mean the security theater that goes on in airports and city buildings) that the chance of being a terror victim is so slim. That's right, certain public safety measures work to prevent the chances of being a victim. The lack of measures don't do a damn thing. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
cybercoma Posted January 1, 2012 Report Posted January 1, 2012 (edited) Profiling won't prevent a sudden mental illness any more than a FAC or a hunting licence. Punish the mentally ill...did your Mom spank you for getting chicken-pox or catching a cold by any chance? Someone that has neurological problems (ie, seizures) loses their driver's license, so I think it's quite reasonable that someone diagnosed with a mental illness should lose their firearms license given the risk. Those convicted of crimes involving weapons (even if they're not conventional like guns or knives) typically lose the ability to possess firearms and other weapons in their sentencing. Edited January 1, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
eyeball Posted January 2, 2012 Report Posted January 2, 2012 I think it's quite reasonable that someone diagnosed with a mental illness should lose their firearms license given the risk. It's clear there are legal means to not allow mentally ill people to purchase guns or have them removed in the case of a diagnosis, but these are rather passive controls that only effect the purchase of a gun or the disposition of an owner's guns following a diagnosis. What about an un-diagnosed or sudden onset of mental illness after the guns have already been legally acquired, the real reason the registry was so completely useless? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Alberta_Ford Posted January 2, 2012 Author Report Posted January 2, 2012 It's clear there are legal means to not allow mentally ill people to purchase guns or have them removed in the case of a diagnosis, but these are rather passive controls that only effect the purchase of a gun or the disposition of an owner's guns following a diagnosis. What about an un-diagnosed or sudden onset of mental illness after the guns have already been legally acquired, the real reason the registry was so completely useless? As is any safety precaution on anything then. Thats a small percentage of people that fill your concern and their is no way to control something sudden and unexpected unless everyone went to center weekly to have their mental well being checked. You are ridiculous confusing what i wrote with what's in your twisted head. I said criminals should be punished and you interpreted mentally ill. Quote
Tilter Posted January 2, 2012 Report Posted January 2, 2012 I've been a hunter and gun owner since my teens, and I never had a problem with a certain level of gun control. Just like I don't like the idea of drunken crazies on the road, I don't like the idea of just anbody having any number of kind of gun they desire. Prior to the long-gun registry, we had a perfectly fine system (Firearm Acquisition Certificate) whereby handguns were strictly limited to those willing to suffer the red tape involved in owning them, automatic weapons and stuff like bazookas were off limits since nobody outside of the army has a legitimate use for those things anyway, and the hunters and target shooters had to pass a criminal background check to buy guns and ammo. This was a reasonable compromise that kept guns out of the hands of crazies and impulse shooters, while allowing for the lawful and legitimate use of firearms. Just because the long-gun registry is ending doesn't mean I want no rules at all. I have no problem being a licensed gun owner, I do have a problem with ignorant urbanites making up an endless litany or rules and regulations designed to make gun ownership so onerous that I feel like a criminal on an ongoing basis because I'm not sure of the latest insane rules regarding where and how I store my guns and ammo. And stop lumping me in with the the Marc Lapines of the world -- that guy was crazy, plain and simple, and you can't legislate crazy away. I'm not sure but I'd bet that the laws regarding storage of and carrying of long guns will remain the same as they are now. I am also against the registration of long guns but I am also against the idea of being a gun owner & not knowing the Regs pertaining to them. Quote
prairiechickin Posted January 2, 2012 Report Posted January 2, 2012 I'm not sure but I'd bet that the laws regarding storage of and carrying of long guns will remain the same as they are now. I am also against the registration of long guns but I am also against the idea of being a gun owner & not knowing the Regs pertaining to them. The long gun registry goes, everything else stays. Its not as if the day after repeal there are no more rules regarding possession, use and storage. As for keeping abreast of the rules, I try, but I'm not kidding when I say you need a team of lawyers to figure it out. When the new rules regarding safe storage came out in the early '90s, my brother had a copy of the new rules because he's a firearms instructor. The two of us sat down for a couple of hours trying to figure out what was required to legally store our guns. Its all written in legaleze and I'm still not sure what they're trying to say. Quote
prairiechickin Posted January 2, 2012 Report Posted January 2, 2012 As I said above you guys should be the one's responsible for designing the system which could help keep costs down too. Oh, now we get some input. If gunowners had been consulted before the long-gun registry, we would likely not still be squabbling over this 16 years later. Sorry, still not interested in your nanny-state suggestions. As I mentioned earlier, I am no longer interested in cooperating with the concerns of people like you. I didn't see a single thing you wrote that addresses how to prevent guns from falling into the hands of people who lose their minds. Not one. Well its a bit tricky knowing when someone will lose their minds (when did you first notice?), but to get a PAL you have to have two signatures from people that know you, as well as the signature of any significant other you live with, and any significant other you've lived with in the previous two years. If you're unhinged I think it would be tough to get those three or four signatures. Quote
jbg Posted January 2, 2012 Report Posted January 2, 2012 Well its a bit tricky knowing when someone will lose their minds (when did you first notice?), but to get a PAL you have to have two signatures from people that know you, as well as the signature of any significant other you live with, and any significant other you've lived with in the previous two years. If you're unhinged I think it would be tough to get those three or four signatures. I'm sure Mark Lapine had those signatures. The simple fact is his conscience would have prevented him from executing that massacre with unregistered firearms. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
eyeball Posted January 2, 2012 Report Posted January 2, 2012 (edited) As is any safety precaution on anything then. Thats a small percentage of people that fill your concern and their is no way to control something sudden and unexpected unless everyone went to center weekly to have their mental well being checked. You are ridiculous confusing what i wrote with what's in your twisted head. I said criminals should be punished and you interpreted mentally ill. You didn't even use the word criminal once in the post I responded to. You started off talking about ill people and then snipers, communists and something about population control and people needing to die for some very strange reason...but not a single word about criminals. You also said let accidents happen and people be punished. Who did you mean other than the ill people you mentioned, did you mean the snipers, communists or the people being culled from the population maybe? You closed with this... Any reasoning of mine has been explained and will not be explained any further. ...and apparently I'm the one with twisted head. Edited January 2, 2012 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted January 2, 2012 Report Posted January 2, 2012 Well its a bit tricky knowing when someone will lose their minds (when did you first notice?), but to get a PAL you have to have two signatures from people that know you, as well as the signature of any significant other you live with, and any significant other you've lived with in the previous two years. If you're unhinged I think it would be tough to get those three or four signatures. That's great, but we've been all over this already. It's even trickier arguing with someone who can't form short-term memories. I repeat, again...what about if you become unhinged after the paperwork has gone through? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted January 2, 2012 Report Posted January 2, 2012 I'm sure Mark Lapine had those signatures. The simple fact is his conscience would have prevented him from executing that massacre with unregistered firearms. I just wish our representatives had the balls to chuck these one-liners out when they're debating the merits of doing nothing. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
CPCFTW Posted January 2, 2012 Report Posted January 2, 2012 (edited) What don't you just lock yourself in a bubble in an underground bunker and leave the reset of us alone? We'll live with our 99.999% chance of not being murdered by an insane man with gun, and you can do the aforementioned to raise your chances to 100%. Don't ask for the rest of society to pay because you're afraid of your own shadow. Edited January 2, 2012 by CPCFTW Quote
eyeball Posted January 2, 2012 Report Posted January 2, 2012 Don't ask for the rest of society to pay because you're afraid of your own shadow. Do you think that's what the government should have said to Marc Lepine's victims and their families? Maybe if they'd just been told to go suck it up and get a life this whole registry debate would have fizzled out right from the beginning. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Tilter Posted January 2, 2012 Report Posted January 2, 2012 I'm sure Mark Lapine had those signatures. The simple fact is his conscience would have prevented him from executing that massacre with unregistered firearms. didn't he steal the rifle used in the killing? Quote
eyeball Posted January 2, 2012 Report Posted January 2, 2012 didn't he steal the rifle used in the killing? Nope it was legally purchased with all the authorizing paperwork appropriately filled out as per regulations. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Tilter Posted January 3, 2012 Report Posted January 3, 2012 The plain facts are: If a killer decides to kill a person or some people, he/she will find a way to do it. Registering guns didn't work and I'm sure that registering knives wouldn't work and our auto are already registered but that didn't stop the guy that ran down a group of teenagers just because they offended him in some way (or he thought they had) The most prolific murderers in the world didn't use guns, they used poison, knives or their hands--- all of which were unregistered. The Vernon BC mass killer (10 + himself) used 2 REGUISTERED pistols & a shotgun(obtained & registered while he was an accused in a domestic dispute,) under a court order to stay away from his ex-wife. Quote
eyeball Posted January 3, 2012 Report Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) I bet you dollars to donuts a car that was being driven by Google would never let that guy run those kids over. I bet Google could come up with a few clever ideas on how to make guns safer too come to think about it. I think I'll write them and ask. Smart-guns that don't work when they're pointed at people would definitely fit the bill. As for the most prolific murderers using their fists...you mean mass murderers like Lepine? Did the madman/woman you're talking about use their weapons at the climax of their rampage to take their own life too? Edited January 3, 2012 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted January 3, 2012 Report Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) Well for crying out loud will you look at that. Smart Gun "I think we'll see guns that are capable of recognizing the user, the authorized user, within the next four, five years," Uh oh, the humanity. It's a step in the right direction. The next one should be obvious. Edited January 3, 2012 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
sharkman Posted January 3, 2012 Report Posted January 3, 2012 You have a better chance of being struck by lighting that killed with a firearm, just where did you hear that? Do you have any stats, or are you merely employing artistic license? Quote
CPCFTW Posted January 3, 2012 Report Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) duplicate Edited January 3, 2012 by CPCFTW Quote
CPCFTW Posted January 3, 2012 Report Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) I bet you dollars to donuts a car that was being driven by Google would never let that guy run those kids over. I bet Google could come up with a few clever ideas on how to make guns safer too come to think about it. I think I'll write them and ask. Smart-guns that don't work when they're pointed at people would definitely fit the bill. As for the most prolific murderers using their fists...you mean mass murderers like Lepine? Did the madman/woman you're talking about use their weapons at the climax of their rampage to take their own life too? Well for crying out loud will you look at that. Smart Gun Uh oh, the humanity. That isn't what you were suggesting... It just recognizes the user... as Marc Lepine's would have recognized him. As for cars driven by Google... http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/816724--woman-who-walked-onto-highway-sues-google-maps Edited January 3, 2012 by CPCFTW Quote
cybercoma Posted January 3, 2012 Report Posted January 3, 2012 If a killer decides to kill a person or some people, he/she will find a way to do it.Sure. If first degree murder was the only way killings happen that would be true. Quote
cybercoma Posted January 3, 2012 Report Posted January 3, 2012 just where did you hear that? Do you have any stats, or are you merely employing artistic license? It's easy to figure out. A quick search shows that 816 people died from gun-related deaths in 2002 and the average number of lightning deaths in a year is about 7. For every person that's killed by lightning in a year, there were over 116 people killed by firearms. Quote
eyeball Posted January 3, 2012 Report Posted January 3, 2012 That isn't what you were suggesting... It just recognizes the user... as Marc Lepine's would have recognized him. I suggested the obvious next step in the previous post, guns that don't work when they're pointed at another person. In the meantime...unload and lock em' up. As for cars driven by Google...http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/816724--woman-who-walked-onto-highway-sues-google-maps Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
sharkman Posted January 3, 2012 Report Posted January 3, 2012 It's easy to figure out. A quick search shows that 816 people died from gun-related deaths in 2002 and the average number of lightning deaths in a year is about 7. For every person that's killed by lightning in a year, there were over 116 people killed by firearms. Okay, I guess I can take down the lightning rod, it didn't look right on my car anyway. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.