Post by druidprincess on Feb 3, 2013 15:43:45 GMT -5
LOL. Sorry, I'm just responding to the assertion Gpointe is a conservative. But carry on.
If she keeps posting the sarcastic remark at least once daily, and as a rule in gun threads, then we've got some game! I'll put some Frank's Red Hot on that shiz. (It's Super Bowl, y'all. That's all I can smell here.)
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
Of course it should be considered, and it is a topic I am actively involved in. However, it is only part of the discussion, and the crazies will make it the entire discussion. Guns also need to be an integral part of the discussion.
I'm honestly curious--although a bit off topic--but this verbiage comes up all the time here:
Please define a "crazy gun" person for me and the group?
Also those "gun people who scream" all the time.
What does a "sane" gun person look like to you all?
Why would you have to be a "crazy gun person" to consider the impact of a soldier suffering with PTSD in the situation?
I think that's a pretty important factor.
Of course it should be considered, and it is a topic I am actively involved in. However, it is only part of the discussion, and the crazies will make it the entire discussion. Guns also need to be an integral part of the discussion.
No way. I totally disagree with you. This happened at a SHOOTING RANGE. Just about everyone agrees that a SHOOTING RANGE is an appropriate place to SHOOT GUNS. Some people think its the ONLY acceptable place to shoot a gun. Maybe gpointe is right and we should just ban shooting ranges now?
This story isn't about guns. It's about someone who murdered two people, for whatever reason. He's been arreseted, and will pay for his crime. Just because everyone is focused on guns right now doesn't mean EVERYTHING is about guns.
I don't get the judging of Chris Kyle here. Without knowing the facts, he's not to blame. Two people are dead because of this tragedy. At least one of whom was a decorated American war veteran. He fought for our country overseas and fought for gun owner rights here in the U.S.
Whether or not I agree with his politics, it's sad. My heart goes out to his family and friends. It can't be easy losing someone in this manner. He, no doubt, was an expert in gun safety. He, likely, wasn't thinking he was putting himself in danger.
Of course it should be considered, and it is a topic I am actively involved in. However, it is only part of the discussion, and the crazies will make it the entire discussion. Guns also need to be an integral part of the discussion.
No way. I totally disagree with you. This happened at a SHOOTING RANGE. Just about everyone agrees that a SHOOTING RANGE is an appropriate place to SHOOT GUNS. Some people think its the ONLY acceptable place to shoot a gun. Maybe gpointe is right and we should just ban shooting ranges now?
This story isn't about guns. It's about someone who murdered two people, for whatever reason. He's been arreseted, and will pay for his crime. Just because everyone is focused on guns right now doesn't mean EVERYTHING is about guns.
So are you saying this guy should have been part of a program that promoted shooting guns?
No way. I totally disagree with you. This happened at a SHOOTING RANGE. Just about everyone agrees that a SHOOTING RANGE is an appropriate place to SHOOT GUNS. Some people think its the ONLY acceptable place to shoot a gun. Maybe gpointe is right and we should just ban shooting ranges now?
This story isn't about guns. It's about someone who murdered two people, for whatever reason. He's been arreseted, and will pay for his crime. Just because everyone is focused on guns right now doesn't mean EVERYTHING is about guns.
So are you saying this guy should have been part of a program that promoted shooting guns?
What?! Of course she isn't saying that. She said nothing of the sort. She is talking about where it is appropriate to shoot guns, not who should be shooting them or even what brought Chris Kyle into that predicament.
...not that I want to speak for MrsAxilla, though...she is perfectly capable of explaining herself if she sees fit
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
But, according to the NRA, someone with PTSD should be in a special database and not have access to a gun, no?
Also, Druid, please note how gpointe used sarcasm and is not contributing to be discussion. It's not just us liberals with the "but Hitler!" comments.
Fmlb - to me a crazy gun person is one who thinks any restriction is unconstitutional and refuses to acknowledge that easy accessibility to guns are part of the problem.
huh. I think, save for this issue, druid, and most everyone else here save you, would consider me liberal.
I'm just over the pearl clutching. On both sides.
Ok. I haven't read every single gun debate on here, but I don't think anyone has seriously suggested we need a full-on ban. I know some (myself included) have said we'd be OK with it, but we respect the second amendment and thus are looking for reasonable gun controls.
I am clutching my pearls b/c existing controls have been systematically dismantled by congressman loyal to the NRA, and the fact that the debate keeps getting tripped up by assumptions and finger pointing rather than sitting down and having conversations.
No way. I totally disagree with you. This happened at a SHOOTING RANGE. Just about everyone agrees that a SHOOTING RANGE is an appropriate place to SHOOT GUNS. Some people think its the ONLY acceptable place to shoot a gun. Maybe gpointe is right and we should just ban shooting ranges now?
This story isn't about guns. It's about someone who murdered two people, for whatever reason. He's been arreseted, and will pay for his crime. Just because everyone is focused on guns right now doesn't mean EVERYTHING is about guns.
So are you saying this guy should have been part of a program that promoted shooting guns?
THAT is a PTSD issue; NOT a gun issue. Let's have a conversation about PTSD and what is or is not appropriate treatment. You know, what you poo poo'd in the first place.
huh. I think, save for this issue, druid, and most everyone else here save you, would consider me liberal.
I'm just over the pearl clutching. On both sides.
Ok. I haven't read every single gun debate on here, but I don't think anyone has seriously suggested we need a full-on ban. I know some (myself included) have said we'd be OK with it, but we respect the second amendment and thus are looking for reasonable gun controls.
I am clutching my pearls b/c existing controls have been systematically dismantled by congressman loyal to the NRA, and the fact that the debate keeps getting tripped up by assumptions and finger pointing rather than sitting down and having conversations.
A lot of the "proposed'' "reasonable" gun controls here on this board are tantamount to a full-on ban..but a LOT of people on this board have some really strong stereotypes about people who own guns, have strong anti-gun views and this is coupled with little to no actual experience with guns so they have no idea that they are actually proposing a full on ban.
A lot of the "proposed'' "reasonable" gun controls here on this board are tantamount to a full-on ban..but a LOT of people on this board have some really strong stereotypes about people who own guns, have strong anti-gun views and this is coupled with little to no actual experience with guns so they have no idea that they are actually proposing a full on ban.
The only one like this that I've heard is the banning of semi-automatic guns, which will clearly never happen.
My idea of reasonable gun control is 1. banning high capacity magazines 2. giving the ATF enough funding and political power to crack down on the small number of gun dealers who are responsible for a huge percentage of the illegal guns in this country 3. close the gun show loophole and require background checks and waiting periods for all gun sales 4. limit the number of guns (at least handguns) you can purchase at one time (perhaps 3 a month? I'm not sure about the exact number but I don't think it's reasonable that you can purchase 30 handguns in one day) and 5. stop allowing or strongly restrict internet firearms sales.
That's a good start, IMO, without infringing on people's right to bear arms.
The only one like this that I've heard is the banning of semi-automatic guns, which will clearly never happen.
My idea of reasonable gun control is 1. banning high capacity magazines 2. giving the ATF enough funding and political power to crack down on the small number of gun dealers who are responsible for a huge percentage of the illegal guns in this country 3. close the gun show loophole and require background checks and waiting periods for all gun sales 4. limit the number of guns (at least handguns) you can purchase at one time (perhaps 3 a month? I'm not sure about the exact number but I don't think it's reasonable that you can purchase 30 handguns in one day) and 5. stop allowing or strongly restrict internet firearms sales.
That's a good start, IMO, without infringing on people's right to bear arms.
There's a strong possibility I've missed you clearly state this before TTT. I genuinely appreciate you saying this now--clearly and concisely, and I agree that those are good and reasonable measures. Thanks for saying your ideas (again if you have before)
As the wife of a service member, people in this thread are making me fucking hostile and Imma have to bow out before I start calling everyone a snoddy little twat.
As the wife of a service member, people in this thread are making me fucking hostile and Imma have to bow out before I start calling everyone a snoddy little twat.
I wish you would post..even just a bit of your thoughts...I'm genuinely curious what you think.
The only one like this that I've heard is the banning of semi-automatic guns, which will clearly never happen.
My idea of reasonable gun control is 1. banning high capacity magazines 2. giving the ATF enough funding and political power to crack down on the small number of gun dealers who are responsible for a huge percentage of the illegal guns in this country 3. close the gun show loophole and require background checks and waiting periods for all gun sales 4. limit the number of guns (at least handguns) you can purchase at one time (perhaps 3 a month? I'm not sure about the exact number but I don't think it's reasonable that you can purchase 30 handguns in one day) and 5. stop allowing or strongly restrict internet firearms sales.
That's a good start, IMO, without infringing on people's right to bear arms.
There's a strong possibility I've missed you clearly state this before TTT. I genuinely appreciate you saying this now--clearly and concisely, and I agree that those are good and reasonable measures. Thanks for saying your ideas (again if you have before)
I'm in agreement with TTT.
I know there is some debate over high capacity magazine (10? 30?) and does and does not constitute a "assault rifle", and am optimistic that a compromise is possible in this realm as well.
I'd also add strict, harsh penalties for failure to comply with the existing laws. And close the loophole that exists in places like NC where a handgun requires a permit, but a AR15 rifle does not.
As the wife of a service member, people in this thread are making me fucking hostile and Imma have to bow out before I start calling everyone a snoddy little twat.
huh. I think, save for this issue, druid, and most everyone else here save you, would consider me liberal.
I'm just over the pearl clutching. On both sides.
Am on phone and not expressing my thoughts fully. "liberals" on the gun issue. On this issue you seem centrist/ right leaning to me when compared to TTT, Sibil, summer and myself, who are probably the most anti-gun people here.
TTT is not Antigun. Sibil probably isn't either. I am and even I can see these things are just ridiculous when blaming the victim, as it seems to be.
There's a strong possibility I've missed you clearly state this before TTT. I genuinely appreciate you saying this now--clearly and concisely, and I agree that those are good and reasonable measures. Thanks for saying your ideas (again if you have before)
I'm in agreement with TTT.
I know there is some debate over high capacity magazine (10? 30?) and does and does not constitute a "assault rifle", and am optimistic that a compromise is possible in this realm as well.
I'd also add strict, harsh penalties for failure to comply with the existing laws. And close the loophole that exists in places like NC where a handgun requires a permit, but a AR15 rifle does not.
I've never felt there was confusion: an assault rifle is a military grade weapon that has selective firing (between auto, semi-auto and burst fire). It has a detachable magazine and an intermediate cartridge. It is really hard to come by these weapons as a civilian. They are illegal in a lot of states and in other states you have to have a class 3 license--the people who own these guns are not criminals. Everyone who owns them are basically following the rules you all would like to put in place for everyone else..strict background checks, the ATF watches them etc.
You are talking about "Assault Weapons." ---guns that have 'features' similar to a military style weapon--including the semi-auto feature or a detachable magazine.
I know there is some debate over high capacity magazine (10? 30?) and does and does not constitute a "assault rifle", and am optimistic that a compromise is possible in this realm as well.
I'd also add strict, harsh penalties for failure to comply with the existing laws. And close the loophole that exists in places like NC where a handgun requires a permit, but a AR15 rifle does not.
I've never felt there was confusion: an assault rifle is a military grade weapon that has selective firing (between auto, semi-auto and burst fire). It has a detachable magazine and an intermediate cartridge. It is really hard to come by these weapons as a civilian. They are illegal in a lot of states and in other states you have to have a class 3 license--the people who own these guns are not criminals. Everyone who owns them are basically following the rules you all would like to put in place for everyone else..strict background checks, the ATF watches them etc.
You are talking about "Assault Weapons." ---guns that have 'features' similar to a military style weapon--including the semi-auto feature or a detachable magazine.
Yes. That is what I mean, thanks for clarifying the difference.
Of course it should be considered, and it is a topic I am actively involved in. However, it is only part of the discussion, and the crazies will make it the entire discussion. Guns also need to be an integral part of the discussion.
No way. I totally disagree with you. This happened at a SHOOTING RANGE. Just about everyone agrees that a SHOOTING RANGE is an appropriate place to SHOOT GUNS. Some people think its the ONLY acceptable place to shoot a gun. Maybe gpointe is right and we should just ban shooting ranges now?
This story isn't about guns. It's about someone who murdered two people, for whatever reason. He's been arreseted, and will pay for his crime. Just because everyone is focused on guns right now doesn't mean EVERYTHING is about guns.
I agree with you that this particular case is not about guns at all. Like you said, a shooting range is the one place that you would absolutely expect to encounter guns (and one you can easily avoid if you do not wish to encounter guns). This case is a clear case of mental illness and the only way this particular case could maybe have been prevented is through better mental healthcare (or better recognition of who is disturbed enough that they should not have access to firearms).
But I do think it says something about the broader issue of guns in that here you have someone who is as highly trained in firearms as you could possibly expect, who has easy access to a weapon right at that very second, surrounded by trained people with guns, and he still became the victim of a shooting. It shows that a 'good guy with a gun' is not necessarily going to save you from a shooting.
No way. I totally disagree with you. This happened at a SHOOTING RANGE. Just about everyone agrees that a SHOOTING RANGE is an appropriate place to SHOOT GUNS. Some people think its the ONLY acceptable place to shoot a gun. Maybe gpointe is right and we should just ban shooting ranges now?
This story isn't about guns. It's about someone who murdered two people, for whatever reason. He's been arreseted, and will pay for his crime. Just because everyone is focused on guns right now doesn't mean EVERYTHING is about guns.
So are you saying this guy should have been part of a program that promoted shooting guns?
Like, for instance, the US Army? Do you think every soldier is honorably discharged at the first sign of PTSD? Armed and in a combat zone is where plenty of those with PTSD are every day. PTSD does not make you a murderer.
And this is why we have to be so so so careful about the mental illness thing, because it takes all of two seconds for the conversation to go from "better resources" to "the mentally ill can't be trusted".
So are you saying this guy should have been part of a program that promoted shooting guns?
Like, for instance, the US Army? Do you think every soldier is honorably discharged at the first sign of PTSD? Armed and in a combat zone is where plenty of those with PTSD are every day. PTSD does not make you a murderer.
And this is why we have to be so so so careful about the mental illness thing, because it takes all of two seconds for the conversation to go from "better resources" to "the mentally ill can't be trusted".
I completely agree with you, pesca, that this is ground we have to tread very, very carefully on, because while the majority of people with mental illness aren't dangerous, there are some who can't be trusted with guns. Like, for example, this guy. And the truth is that many, many people who are depressed do commit suicide with the guns in their own home. It's a real danger. But, if I know that by getting treatment for depression, it might cause my spouse to lose his guns, for example, I might avoid seeking treatment. And now I'm depressed, untreated *and* I have access to guns. So I don't know what the answer is there.
Could anyone have recognized that this guy, specifically, was disturbed enough that he shouldn't be around guns? I don't know. Maybe an expert can answer that question.
I completely agree with you, pesca, that this is ground we have to tread very, very carefully on, because while the majority of people with mental illness aren't dangerous, there are some who can't be trusted with guns. Like, for example, this guy.
I don't know that you can say that. We don't know ANYTHING about this guy. We don't know anything about Adam Lanza, for that matter. Lots of people with no history of any kind of mental illness muder people. (leaving aside the paradox that no one with murder on the brain can be trusted with a gun. That's Thought Crime territory)
I completely agree with you, pesca, that this is ground we have to tread very, very carefully on, because while the majority of people with mental illness aren't dangerous, there are some who can't be trusted with guns. Like, for example, this guy.
I don't know that you can say that. We don't know ANYTHING about this guy. We don't know anything about Adam Lanza, for that matter. Lots of people with no history of any kind of mental illness muder people. (leaving aside the paradox that no one with murder on the brain can be trusted with a gun. That's Thought Crime territory)
You're right. He may or may not have been mentally ill. But clearly he's someone who shouldn't have had a gun. Whether anyone could have known that ahead of time, I really don't know.
I think this is part of the problem in this country, though, with the idea that everyone should have a gun until they use it to kill someone, then they can't have it anymore. u
I completely agree with you, pesca, that this is ground we have to tread very, very carefully on, because while the majority of people with mental illness aren't dangerous, there are some who can't be trusted with guns. Like, for example, this guy.
I don't know that you can say that. We don't know ANYTHING about this guy. We don't know anything about Adam Lanza, for that matter. Lots of people with no history of any kind of mental illness muder people. (leaving aside the paradox that no one with murder on the brain can be trusted with a gun. That's Thought Crime territory)
I guess this is what the stronger gun control advocates say less gun = less opportunity for when illness takes over. The recent case notwithstanding.
So are you saying this guy should have been part of a program that promoted shooting guns?
Like, for instance, the US Army? Do you think every soldier is honorably discharged at the first sign of PTSD? Armed and in a combat zone is where plenty of those with PTSD are every day. PTSD does not make you a murderer.
And this is why we have to be so so so careful about the mental illness thing, because it takes all of two seconds for the conversation to go from "better resources" to "the mentally ill can't be trusted".
I know that PTSD doesn't mean you will be a murderer. But you are much more likely to snap in some way than someone without PTSD. In the numerous models I have seen for helping vets with PTSD, none include putting guns in their hands.
I also am not saying that the mentally ill cant be trusted. I have both personal and professional experience with people with mental illness. However I think most people would agree that people with certain diagnoses should not have access to guns because there is more of a chance of something happening.
I think there's two separate issues here: a) Is it "smart" for someone like Nancy Lanza to take someone like Adam Lanza to the range, or for someone like Chris Kyle to take this guy to the range. And even here it's not a blanket answer, because I see a HUGE difference between introducing a young kid to a new hobby and taking a trained killer to the range.
But there's also issue b) what should be the regulations around gun purchasing and licensing, ie should they be "allowed" to do this.
And behind both of these is that we need more research and resources around mental illness so we know exactly what the risk factors are for violent behavior and have counselors and medical professionals involved with those individuals so they know what's going on with them, and not just ban activities and purchases for people who "seem off".