re: Say what you want, but this is hilariously ironic.

quote:

---

and yet we have not done it.

But it will be interesting to see your premise tested here. So far there is no evidence here of anything but excuses as to why medically diagnosed psychopaths should not be gun restricted.

---

Seems some of the recent shootings have shown that the enforcement end of something like this often can/will be the weak link.

quote:

---

and yet we have not done it.

---

Aren't mental health professionals required to report it when a person expresses a desire to hurt others? I mean, I can't claim to know for certain, but I thought that was the case.

quote:

---

So far there is no evidence here of anything but excuses as to why medically diagnosed psychopaths should not be gun restricted.

---

On this one, it isn't that I oppose it. I simply don't know how you do it unless they express a desire to hurt others.

Do we have MH professionals report their treatment of voluntary patients? That seems like it could be a much worse idea than you'd think.

But, like I said. I'm good with preventing the expressed violence people..........and, I suppose the same for psychos if I can hear a method for doing it that doesn't merely increase the likelihood that people don't seek help in the first place.

Just came here to say 137 downvotes and counting.

Is this going the way you thought it would CollegeFBRules?

quote:

---

Just came here to say 137 downvotes and counting.

Is this going the way you thought it would CollegeFBRules?

---

That’s actually less than I expected.

quote:

---

I've NEVER met a gun regulation proponent who could articulate me what would be the max regulation they would EVER ask for.

---

That’s not true, because I already met you on that earlier. The problem is that you don’t want to find a middle ground, you just want to pin me to a hard, specific line - life doesn’t work that way. We can’t even keep known psychopaths from getting a gun right now, and I am cast as the one out of my gourd.

quote:

---

That's because with very rare exception, they are all are chasing total confiscation. They may not even openly realize they are, but they are.

---

You’re assuming in a way that doesn’t look favorable on you. Hell, I even told you I’m not looking for that, but I’m also not going to tell you a goal of zero gun deaths at the hand of a violent criminal is an unrealistic goal. But I don’t really care about gun deaths associated with gang and drug violence. I care about it in the term of mass shootings.

quote:

---

Just as in this thread. If I ask you if a future shooting incident will cause you to ask for more even if you get what you want now.......and you say yes............then I know that the only end game is 100% confiscation.

---

So you’ve been playing gotcha the entire time?!

quote:

---

That's because even with 100% confiscation, you can't reduce shootings to zero.

---

Mass shootings?

quote:

---

To me, the bottom line is this.

I've NEVER met a gun regulation proponent who could articulate me what would be the max regulation they would EVER ask for.

That's because with very rare exception, they are all are chasing total confiscation. They may not even openly realize they are, but they are.

Just as in this thread. If I ask you if a future shooting incident will cause you to ask for more even if you get what you want now.......and you say yes............then I know that the only end game is 100% confiscation.

That's because even with 100% confiscation, you can't reduce shootings to zero.

---

I am neither a gun rights absolutist or a person who would repeal the Second Amendment. I do, however, think thatit could have been better-written. An aquaintance ssked me a few months ago to summarize my thoughts on gun rights.

My version of the Second Amendment would return the matter to the States (as originally intended in our federal system) and would read something like the following:

quote:

---

(a)
No branch of the Federal Government shall have authority to prohibit, restrict or regulate the private ownership or possession of personal firearms, except on property owned or leased by a branch of the federal government or subsidiary unit thereof.

(b)
As used herein, the term "personal firearm" shall mean any weapon designed to be carried and operated by a single person without mechanical assistance, whose design intends or allows it to expel (from the weapon and toward a target selected by the user of the weapon) a single, non-explosive projectile per triggering action .

(c)
No provision of this Constitution shall be read (a) to extend these limitations to any State government or to any governmental unit subsidiary thereto OR (b) to give effect to the firearm laws of one State within the geographical boundaries of any other State.

---

In other words, the Feds would have no authority WHATSOEVER to regulate handguns, rifles, shotguns and the like, but WOULD be able regulate big weaponry (things we would call "ordnance" today) and things that throw bombs (think RPGs, etc). States and local governments, however, would retain the authority to regulate the former category. If you don't like the rules in State X, you can move to State Y.


I have no interest in trying to write an entire Firearms Code today for any State or local government, but I would advocate something along the following lines:

I would not ban private ownership of firearms in general, but restrictions on ownership by violent felons and the violently-unstable would be reasonable. I see no reason to ban ownership by non-violent felons.

Background checks and waiting periods are entirely reasonable, and I see no reason that those requirements should apply only to holders of FFL licenses. Modern technology could easily allow grandpa to run a check before selling his gun to cousin Cletus. I see no reason that Felon Cletus should be able to easily bypass ownership prohibitions by purchasing from a friend or relative.

I would restrict sales to minors and would hold parents responsible for misuse of their firearms by their minor children. Parents need to supervise their kids and prevent access to kids when not under supervision. If parents fail to do so, they should face the consequences.

I would be willing to consider a requirement that anyone who wishes to purchase a firearm must have completed a firearm safety course not less than five years prior to such purchase.

As to carrying weapons in public, I have no LEGAL problem with EITHER concealed carry or open carry, but there should be training and licensure requirements. Sorry, but I don't want every yahoo with a gun fetish walking the streets with a gun on his hip.

I see no reason to require licensure for in-home use, range-use or hunting-use.

Property owners who post No Trespassing signs would have near-absolute immunity for the use of deadly force on their own property, INCLUDING "spring guns" and similar devices. If we are going to allow the use of firearms for personal protection, we should mean it.

quote:

---

That’s not true, because I already met you on that earlier. T

---

and then he went back to saying your ultimate goal was 0

quote:

---

So you’ve been playing gotcha the entire time?!

---

it's not gotcha. The reason why gun proponents like me ask questions like I have asked is to flesh out what the real limit is. If you say you're only going to ask for x but then admit that if ex doesn't achieve zero you will ask for more then it means what it means. That's not a gotcha

quote:

---

Mass shootings

---

shooting mass shooting. If your goal is a zero it is unattainable. Surely you realize that

quote:

---

FBI’s definition of mass murder to zero.

---

mass.......zero..... does not compute.

LESS THAN FOUR PEOPLE DEAD IN ONE PLACE AND ONE INCIDENT. frickING READ!