Members crohny Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 Mental health is a darn good topic to discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members cryptosonic Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 Originally Posted by crohny Mental health is a darn good topic to discuss. I feel my mental health is decent given the fact I am wigged out by needle drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pbone Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 Originally Posted by Reauchambeau come here for a visit, we have safe injection sites. holiday perhaps? you have to push the plunger and we can only listen to grimes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pedaltones Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 Supposedly this Lanza character had Aspergers. If people like that's only indication that they might one day snap and rampage is that they are thought of as a little weird, quiet, don't fit in at school and maybe bullied, it's pretty useless as an indicator. Often these crazies are described in such terms after the atrocity, but how many others fit that bill?The efforts needed by a crack universal mental-healthcare system to weed out potential spree-killers that coast along in life, being for the most part considered a little off and thus passing under everybody's radar, is nigh on impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lanefair Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 Can't that Obama of yours spend 1% of the military budget on treating the root causes of these problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members cryptosonic Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 Originally Posted by Pedaltones but how many others fit that bill? Every one of us. Try to describe your neighbors, then imagine your neighbors describing you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members driverhasabomb Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 Originally Posted by V In this instance the regulations worked to prevent the killer from purchasing a weapon. Turns out he didn't have to because they were his mother's guns and his mom was something of a survivalist. Now maybe gun regulation needs to be on a household rather than individual basis to prevent something like this. Like, sorry, if everyone in your house can't be qualified to use a gun safely none of you can have them. It seems restrictive but I mean, that's just practical. You want to prevent access to weapons for people who should not have them? Make sure the weapons aren't in their own house. And who is going to enforce such an outrageous law? Are the police going to have unfettered access to your home anytime they want to try and catch your autistic son living in a home with guns? I understand what you're saying man but the kind of stuff you're proposing is crazy. Banning ALL guns for everyone makes much more sense than the road you're going down. At least it would be practical and, technically, enforceable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members driverhasabomb Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 Repeat after me:AR15'S ARE NOT "ASSAULT RIFLES"You've learned something today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitardustin Posted December 16, 2012 Members Share Posted December 16, 2012 Originally Posted by driverhasabomb Repeat after me: AR15'S ARE NOT "ASSAULT RIFLES" You've learned something today. {censored}ING THANK-YOU. The original company name was ArmaLite. If not fully automatic, just as deadly as any old gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members V Posted December 16, 2012 Members Share Posted December 16, 2012 Originally Posted by driverhasabomb And who is going to enforce such an outrageous law? Are the police going to have unfettered access to your home anytime they want to try and catch your autistic son living in a home with guns? I understand what you're saying man but the kind of stuff you're proposing is crazy. Banning ALL guns for everyone makes much more sense than the road you're going down. At least it would be practical and, technically, enforceable. I don't see why background checking a household is all that different from background checking a person. The idea would be to validate whether or not it was reasonable to have guns at that location rather than whether or not a specific person should have them. Alternatively you could do something like a gps authorization system where guns would be unable to fire outside of designated zones such as firing ranges and hunting grounds. Or say you needed to use your gun in your home in an emergency situation the gun notifies authorities to respond to a break in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members crohny Posted December 16, 2012 Members Share Posted December 16, 2012 Originally Posted by V I don't see why background checking a household is all that different from background checking a person. The idea would be to validate whether or not it was reasonable to have guns at that location rather than whether or not a specific person should have them. Alternatively you could do something like a gps authorization system where guns would be unable to fire outside of designated zones such as firing ranges and hunting grounds. Or say you needed to use your gun in your home in an emergency situation the gun notifies authorities to respond to a break in. The issue would be you're taking away some one's right to own a gun because of a what if situation. The person who is sound enough to own a gun to the eye of the law could be the person who ends up going on a killing spree at the mall food court. Why not just assume everyone will kill everyone else and let no one have guns? And I will leave this here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Reauchambeau Posted December 16, 2012 Members Share Posted December 16, 2012 Originally Posted by pbone you have to push the plunger and we can only listen to grimes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members V Posted December 16, 2012 Members Share Posted December 16, 2012 Originally Posted by crohny The issue would be you're taking away some one's right to own a gun because of a what if situation. The person who is sound enough to own a gun to the eye of the law could be the person who ends up going on a killing spree at the mall food court. Why not just assume everyone will kill everyone else and let no one have guns? And I will leave this here... I mean maybe, but that would be difficult to get done. I just think with our current tech we could probably have gun manufacturers record what is fired where and shut down a weapon if its being discharged repeatedly in public. Wouldnt even need to be a government operation if the manufacturers were required to record weapon discharges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Reauchambeau Posted December 16, 2012 Members Share Posted December 16, 2012 Originally Posted by driverhasabomb Repeat after me: AR15'S ARE NOT "ASSAULT RIFLES" You've learned something today. tell that to the families of the victims of the Aroura Theater and Oregon Shoppin mall massacres. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitardustin Posted December 16, 2012 Members Share Posted December 16, 2012 Do you guys really think these rules would be doable? Serious question and not just trying to start {censored}. I own a ton of guns but I fully agree that it was far too easy for me to obtain them. Being of sound mind, if I was told by authorities today that I had to give them all up unless I took a background check and a psych test or something it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. Guns are dangerous as {censored} in the wrong hands. I just have a hard time believing very much would change in the growing community of people that shouldn't own firearms. When Americans want something, they get it. Psych evals would be a great idea but they just aren't as black and white as people think they are. The results can come with a huge bias. Background checks are already in effect in some places as far as I know, but again it's not as hard to clear a background as people think. I just really doubt a bunch of new laws (while obviously necessary) would change anything. CSB I know just rambling but I just don't think it would ever happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members V Posted December 16, 2012 Members Share Posted December 16, 2012 Originally Posted by guitardustin Do you guys really think these rules would be doable? Serious question and not just trying to start {censored}. I own a ton of guns but I fully agree that it was far too easy for me to obtain them. Being of sound mind, if I was told by authorities today that I had to give them all up unless I took a background check and a psych test or something it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. Guns are dangerous as {censored} in the wrong hands. I just have a hard time believing very much would change in the growing community of people that shouldn't own firearms. When Americans want something, they get it. Psych evals would be a great idea but they just aren't as black and white as people think they are. The results can come with a huge bias. Background checks are already in effect in some places as far as I know, but again it's not as hard to clear a background as people think. I just really doubt a bunch of new laws (while obviously necessary) would change anything. CSB I know just rambling but I just don't think it would ever happen. I do think a long term approach of consumer guns requiring some sort of shot tracking would eventually help at least. I mean, shouldnt all weapons be disabled within a school zone ideally? Or a mall. A church etc. It could be up to the owner of the building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members V Posted December 16, 2012 Members Share Posted December 16, 2012 Originally Posted by guitardustin Do you guys really think these rules would be doable? Serious question and not just trying to start {censored}. I own a ton of guns but I fully agree that it was far too easy for me to obtain them. Being of sound mind, if I was told by authorities today that I had to give them all up unless I took a background check and a psych test or something it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. Guns are dangerous as {censored} in the wrong hands. I just have a hard time believing very much would change in the growing community of people that shouldn't own firearms. When Americans want something, they get it. Psych evals would be a great idea but they just aren't as black and white as people think they are. The results can come with a huge bias. Background checks are already in effect in some places as far as I know, but again it's not as hard to clear a background as people think. I just really doubt a bunch of new laws (while obviously necessary) would change anything. CSB I know just rambling but I just don't think it would ever happen. I do think a long term approach of consumer guns requiring some sort of shot tracking would eventually help at least. I mean, shouldnt all weapons be disabled within a school zone ideally? Or a mall. A church etc. It could be up to the owner of the building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members crohny Posted December 16, 2012 Members Share Posted December 16, 2012 Originally Posted by V I mean maybe, but that would be difficult to get done. I just think with our current tech we could probably have gun manufacturers record what is fired where and shut down a weapon if its being discharged repeatedly in public. Wouldnt even need to be a government operation if the manufacturers were required to record weapon discharges. That would be rad, but what about the millions of guns people would just buy instead of the new smart guns you are offering? I think the cost of making the gun plus monitoring them would be beyond the reach of the average citizen. Also doesn't stop an old gun from being fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitardustin Posted December 16, 2012 Members Share Posted December 16, 2012 Originally Posted by V I do think a long term approach of consumer guns requiring some sort of shot tracking would eventually help at least. I mean, shouldnt all weapons be disabled within a school zone ideally? Or a mall. A church etc. It could be up to the owner of the building. If the supposed selection process worked and they were in the hands of decent people then they wouldn't need to be disabled in areas like that I would think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitardustin Posted December 16, 2012 Members Share Posted December 16, 2012 Originally Posted by Reauchambeau tell that to the families of the victims of the Aroura Theater and Oregon Shoppin mall massacres. That's not his opinion, it's fact. An assault rifle is a specific type of weapon. An AR15 is not one of them. Do your research before opposing something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members V Posted December 16, 2012 Members Share Posted December 16, 2012 Originally Posted by crohny That would be rad, but what about the millions of guns people would just buy instead of the new smart guns you are offering? I think the cost of making the gun plus monitoring them would be beyond the reach of the average citizen. Also doesn't stop an old gun from being fired. Yeah obviously its not a perfect solution but if it were mandated and enforced it could eventually be effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Reauchambeau Posted December 16, 2012 Members Share Posted December 16, 2012 the gun culture in the US is too engrained to ever turn back, unless there were extremely radical measures taken. apparently the routine school shootings and now 20 youngsters getting slaughtered, isn't enough for your law makers to take action against the gun lobby.freedom to own guns and have loosy goosy laws comes at a cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members crohny Posted December 16, 2012 Members Share Posted December 16, 2012 Originally Posted by guitardustin If the supposed selection process worked and they were in the hands of decent people then they wouldn't need to be disabled in areas like that I would think On top of that, what if the person firing off all those rounds is defending himself and others against a person with an older gun without the smart technology? You just {censored}ed over the good guy. You'd have to have cameras and mics on the gun to get a real time feel for the situation so you know you aren't killing a family yourself by disabling the gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members crohny Posted December 16, 2012 Members Share Posted December 16, 2012 Originally Posted by V Yeah obviously its not a perfect solution but if it were mandated and enforced it could eventually be effective. But if you're going to come up with a solution it can't be just as broken as what you're trying to fix. You're still not making it safe while making it harder for people to protect them selves making it even less safe. I don't feel this option would do anyone justice. There are too many loop holes for the people who want to commit crime and a bunch of hurdles that will only hurt people who respect guns and have the ability to safely own and use them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members V Posted December 16, 2012 Members Share Posted December 16, 2012 Originally Posted by crohny On top of that, what if the person firing off all those rounds is defending himself and others against a person with an older gun without the smart technology? You just {censored}ed over the good guy. You'd have to have cameras and mics on the gun to get a real time feel for the situation so you know you aren't killing a family yourself by disabling the gun. How often have you heard of someone returning fire in a mass shooting and stopping it though. I cant recall that ever happening. bviously youd also need to get rid of non tracked weapons as part of the transition though. Well whatever. I am just thinking of a way to reduce gun viopence using our newer tech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.