Gun ownership poll

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Ok, so you would support (or not object to) background checks. You would support mental health measures, but not if they infringe on constitutional rights.

1) What mental health measures would you support, and how do you see this helping the problem?
2) You appear to be saying any curb on guns/ammo/etc is an infringement on your rights. But we put curbs on our rights in almost every aspect of our lives, for the good of us all. Why would, say, making mandatory gun safety classes before buying a first gun against the constitution, but not taking driver's Ed before getting behind the wheel?

1. I'm really not sure about what mental health measures could be enacted. HIPAA makes it difficult, if not impossible, for medical records to be released/shared. Perhaps something along the lines of if you have a specific diagnosis from a qualified mental health practitioner, a simple statement can be shared that the person should not have access to weapons; without sharing the details of the diagnosis. The doctor could put the bottom-line diagnosis, such as "John Doe suffers from schizophrenia." This could be put in the NICS System.

2. I personally have no problem with a requirement for a person to attend a gun safety class. One problem is this: say a person receives a threat of death from an ex-partner. We all know the problems with restraining orders - they do NOT work! So, the person goes out and wants to buy a gun for self-defense. Do they have to go through a gun safety class? Do they have to wait a certain number of days before actually getting the self-defense tool (aka gun)? Meanwhile, the ex has a weapon and the means to use it against the victim; and the victim is hamstrung by "the system", with no way to defend him/herself.

3. We need to bring God back into the family!

4. We need to bring responsible parenting back into the family!

5. We need to get rid of all the violent video games that are plaguing society!

6. We need to have actual security in all schools, 12th grade and below!

Steve

[egri]

Originally Posted by Steve D

1. I'm really not sure about what mental health measures could be enacted. HIPAA makes it difficult, if not impossible, for medical records to be released/shared. Perhaps something along the lines of if you have a specific diagnosis from a qualified mental health practitioner, a simple statement can be shared that the person should not have access to weapons; without sharing the details of the diagnosis. The doctor could put the bottom-line diagnosis, such as "John Doe suffers from schizophrenia." This could be put in the NICS System.

On the ship, we had a 'Do Not Issue' list, where every time someone had a condition that made prevented them from carrying a firearm, medical would let the armory know, and the updated list would be posted in the armory, signed by the CO. The only people who knew were the affected sailors, medical, the CO, and armory personnel. It didn't say anything beyond "The following personnel are restricted from handling weapons and ammunition: John Smith, Jane Doe, etc..." but it didn't need to; if they were on the list, that was that.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Steve D

1. I'm really not sure about what mental health measures could be enacted. HIPAA makes it difficult, if not impossible, for medical records to be released/shared. Perhaps something along the lines of if you have a specific diagnosis from a qualified mental health practitioner, a simple statement can be shared that the person should not have access to weapons; without sharing the details of the diagnosis. The doctor could put the bottom-line diagnosis, such as "John Doe suffers from schizophrenia." This could be put in the NICS System.

2. I personally have no problem with a requirement for a person to attend a gun safety class. One problem is this: say a person receives a threat of death from an ex-partner. We all know the problems with restraining orders - they do NOT work! So, the person goes out and wants to buy a gun for self-defense. Do they have to go through a gun safety class? Do they have to wait a certain number of days before actually getting the self-defense tool (aka gun)? Meanwhile, the ex has a weapon and the means to use it against the victim; and the victim is hamstrung by "the system", with no way to defend him/herself.

3. We need to bring God back into the family!

4. We need to bring responsible parenting back into the family!

5. We need to get rid of all the violent video games that are plaguing society!

6. We need to have actual security in all schools, 12th grade and below!

Steve

1) well, what I would term the "pro-gun" crowd is pushing a very heavy narrative that this is strictly a mental health issue. But if mental health can't somehow be handled, then it appears we'll end up doing what we always do: nothing
2) I'm sure all kinds of "what ifs" will be brought up against any possible step towards a solution.
3) any God? Just making sure we have room for Muslims, Jews, and everyone else at the table. I assume Wiccan and atheists aren't welcome? To go back to the Founding Fathers, I remember reading most of them were Diest.
4) agree. How??
5) who decides what is violent?
6) I've asked before, are you willing to lead the way for higher taxes to pay?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

5) who decides what is violent?

K.en Su.li.k,

Was the incident in Uvalde violent? If so, how did you decide that? Did someone tell you it was violent? Just wondering how you came to the conclusion whether is was violent or not?

And this is why nothing ever gets resolved and we'll keep having this same discussion after each school shooting because your side wants to debate the semantics of what is violent and other silly things like that where common sense should otherwise prevail.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Ken Sulik,

Was the incident in Uvalde violent? If so, how did you decide that? Did someone tell you it was violent? Just wondering how you came to the conclusion whether is was violent or not?

And this is why nothing ever gets resolved and we'll keep having this same discussion after each school shooting because your side wants to debate the semantics of what is violent and other silly things like that where common sense should otherwise prevail.

What is violence? What is pro-life? I’m a fan of the Socratic but these are absolutely terrible takes.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Ken Sulik,

Was the incident in Uvalde violent? If so, how did you decide that? Did someone tell you it was violent? Just wondering how you came to the conclusion whether is was violent or not?

And this is why nothing ever gets resolved and we'll keep having this same discussion after each school shooting because your side wants to debate the semantics of what is violent and other silly things like that where common sense should otherwise prevail.

So you are asking whether brains and blood splattered across a classroom is equivalent to some colorful images on a tv screen that will disappear if your cat knocks the cord out? Got it.

Pornography. Video games. The Media. All of which have been affirmed by the SCOTUS to be protected under the 1st amendment. Stop and Frisk, 4th amendment. Over 65% of a certain group of citizens believe that a confession obtained sans Miranda should be admissible.
Common sense should prevail, just not on the 2nd.
And the Media shouldn't ever report on these massacres. Just offer thoughts and prayers and wait for the months-long investigation to correct mischaracterizations made by law enforcement and eyewitness accounts.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Deertick

So you are asking whether brains and blood splattered across a classroom is equivalent to some colorful images on a tv screen that will disappear if your cat knocks the cord out? Got it.

No, Jim Marinari. I'm not saying that at all. Your putting words in my mouth. Try to comprehending the full context of what was said. I'll lay it out for you since you have a comprehension problem. Steve D said that we should "get rid of all the violent video games." The Ken Sulik asked the question, "who decides what is violent?" My point was, common sense should prevail as to what is violent and what is not. I never inferred that "brains and blood splattered across a classroom is equivalent to some colorful images on a tv screen." But, given your comprehension problem, it's no wonder that's what you inferred.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Ke.n Su.li.k,

Was the incident in Uvalde violent? If so, how did you decide that? Did someone tell you it was violent? Just wondering how you came to the conclusion whether is was violent or not?

And this is why nothing ever gets resolved and we'll keep having this same discussion after each school shooting because your side wants to debate the semantics of what is violent and other silly things like that where common sense should otherwise prevail.

David Jame.s,
What is "my side"??? My response is to a point about video games. I think first person shooter games are violent. Do you? But what about Wipeout? Circus Atari?

I'm hearing calls to ban video games, ban food with additives, make schools into fortresses, and "bring back God.". I put forward one small step for mandatory gun training, did you see that? It just might have bought the Uvalde shooter some time between trying to buy the guns and shooting up the school. Time where maybe someone could have intervened. Do you have a valid response? Perhaps more legitimate suggestions?? I haven't seen you give one suggestion in this entire thread about how to put an end to gun violence, but you've taken a lot of shots at others.


See if you can respond in a helpful way, no insults or sarcasm. Try to work on resolving the issue.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

I think first person shooter games are violent. Do you? But what about Wipeout? Circus Atari?

Ke.n Su.li.k, (continuing with full names because if anyone ever Googles you, I want them to see your ridiculous posts).

If you have to ask what is violent and what is not, you probably need some kind of mental help.

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

blah, blah, blah...unintelligible ramblings...blah, blah, blah

I'm not going to even address the rest of your nonsense.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Ke.n S.uli.k, (continuing with full names because if anyone ever Googles you, I want them to see your ridiculous posts).

If you have to ask what is violent and what is not, you probably need some kind of mental help.



I'm not going to even address the rest of your nonsense.

Quite the Knight of the Keyboard, David Jame.s!

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Steve D

3. We need to bring God back into the family!

Right!! Because in the entire history of mankind, nobody has ever experienced violence because of a god or religion. Right.

But wait a minute ... my bad. Religion or god doesn't kill people, people kill people. Right? Did I get that right?

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Right!! Because in the entire history of mankind, nobody has ever experienced violence because of a god or religion. Right.

But wait a minute ... my bad. Religion or god doesn't kill people, people kill people. Right? Did I get that right?

Isn’t it about that time of day that you have to kneel on a rug and pray to your CLIMATE CHANGE God facing toward BO’s latest oceanfront mansion or JK’s private jet?

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Isn’t it about that time of day that you have to kneel on a rug and pray to your CLIMATE CHANGE God facing toward BO’s latest oceanfront mansion or JK’s private jet?

It's good to see that you've gotten over your meltdown. Just stay on your meds and you should do fine. Although you do seem to be hallucinating again.

[vintagetoppsguy]

At the time of this post, this thread has 4,473 views. My guess is a lot of people have read this thread, but they don't comment for whatever reason. My guess is also a lot of those people either consider their own political views as center, center-left or center-right. In other words, their somewhere in the middle, but might lean one direction or another. If you're in that category, then this post is for you.

Do you not see why we can't come together as a country and compromise on gun control? The extreme far left has tried to highjack this thread and have debates about meaning of words such as "pro-life," "pro-choice" or what "violent" means. They don't want to compromise, they would rather debate trivial things. Unless it starts with "ban, ban, ban" there is no compromise with these people.

In a compromise both sides give up something for the benefit of working out a deal. I'm personally willing to try things such as:

• Raising the minimum age to purchase a firearm
• More comprehensive background checks
• Waiting period
• Mental health examinations as needed
• Tighter school security (yes, I'm willing to pay more taxes)
• Open to other suggestions as well

But what is their focus? Debating meaningless words not relevant to the topic. Anyway, there have been many threads such as this in the past on here and there will probably continue to be more after the next tragedy, and the next and so on until the far left wants a true compromise. Again, both sides give up something in a compromise. But for now, nothing has changed, nothing will change until we can focus on the problem. Carry on.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

In a compromise both sides give up something for the benefit of working out a deal. I'm personally willing to try things such as:

• Raising the minimum age to purchase a firearm
• More comprehensive background checks
• Waiting period
• Mental health examinations as needed
• Tighter school security (yes, I'm willing to pay more taxes)
• Open to other suggestions as well

- No. 18 is the adult age in society. If an 18 year old can sign a lease/mortgage, live on their own, be responsible for themselves and/or others (family, roommates, etc.), they should be able to defend themselves adequately against any and all threats.

- Not sure what this solves. The Uvalde shooter passed a background check.

- No. Nobody should have to wait for a tool to defend themselves/their families. Not to mention this prevents literally nothing as the Uvalde shooter/other shoots could just carry out his heinous act after the waiting period.

- No. This could be easily politicized and weaponized against sane people. Mental health is subjective in most cases. The Tulsa shooter had a botched surgery and snapped. Mental health checks wouldn't prevent that.

- Yes to this, but let's audit government for the funds before taxing Americans. Maybe the Congress slush fund can be emptied for starters.

- Other suggestions: hold society, Big Pharma, and government accountable. Raise better kids, uphold better basic values, fix our corrupt school system, quit pill shoving, etc. I'm not in the minority in refusing to give up liberties for someone else to feel safe. I live right, do my best to treat people right, and am a law abiding system.

Murder is already illegal. I don't believe many serial killers used firearms to commit their crimes. Murder is not restricted by the tool, but rather enabled by the absence of proper values, environment, treatment, etc. Additional laws won't prevent what is already illegal yet achievable by really any means necessary once someone commits to that act. Until we start having legitimate conversations about the real problems - Big Pharma, mental health, attentive families, non-corrupt education, etc. - nothing will change. It will only ever get worse.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

- No. 18 is the adult age in society. If an 18 year old can sign a lease/mortgage, live on their own, be responsible for themselves and/or others (family, roommates, etc.), they should be able to defend themselves adequately against any and all threats.

- Not sure what this solves. The Uvalde shooter passed a background check.

- No. Nobody should have to wait for a tool to defend themselves/their families. Not to mention this prevents literally nothing as the Uvalde shooter/other shoots could just carry out his heinous act after the waiting period.

- No. This could be easily politicized and weaponized against sane people. Mental health is subjective in most cases. The Tulsa shooter had a botched surgery and snapped. Mental health checks wouldn't prevent that.

- Yes to this, but let's audit government for the funds before taxing Americans. Maybe the Congress slush fund can be emptied for starters.

- Other suggestions: hold society, Big Pharma, and government accountable. Raise better kids, uphold better basic values, fix our corrupt school system, quit pill shoving, etc. I'm not in the minority in refusing to give up liberties for someone else to feel safe. I live right, do my best to treat people right, and am a law abiding system.

Murder is already illegal. I don't believe many serial killers used firearms to commit their crimes. Murder is not restricted by the tool, but rather enabled by the absence of proper values, environment, treatment, etc. Additional laws won't prevent what is already illegal yet achievable by really any means necessary once someone commits to that act. Until we start having legitimate conversations about the real problems - Big Pharma, mental health, attentive families, non-corrupt education, etc. - nothing will change. It will only ever get worse.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

You have a lot of no's, do you have any suggestions?

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

At the time of this post, this thread has 4,473 views. My guess is a lot of people have read this thread, but they don't comment for whatever reason.

I'm a Conservative Republican who voted for Trump twice. I stay away from these discussions because they always turn ugly and in thd end, nobody ever has their mind changed. So, I don't see the point.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Jim65

I'm a Conservative Republican who voted for Trump twice. I stay away from these discussions because they always turn ugly and in thd end, nobody ever has their mind changed. So, I don't see the point.

Well, if you voted for him TWICE, we can assume there are a lot of points you don't see.


.