Gun Control

[notorious]

We have all heard about what happened in Aurora, Co, and I think that Gun Control is going to be a huge topic in the following months.


What measures need to be taken? Do you have any ideas that will help prevent this kind of thing from happening again as it pertains to guns?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Iowanian

It's only foggy to far left liberal douchebags.

Erm... okay.

[Bo's Pelini]

Here's a novel idea:

How about we take mental disorders more seriously? Most of these shooters are on some sort of anti-depressant. It's amazing how we dismiss a mental disease it's really no different than say diabetes.

Guns aren't the problem.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

So basically, making it easy for criminals to get weapons doesn't bother you? Got it. That is kind of like saying people are going to drive illegally anyways so why should we make them obtain a license. I mean what harm would there be in preventing convicted felons from purchasing guns legally?

It is easy for criminals to get guns. No, it doesn't bother me. I'm fine with whatever laws you want to make that affect only criminals as long as it doesn't affect me. I'm just informing you that it won't keep criminals from obtaining guns. It's a silly, naive notion that you need to think about a little more.

[Dayze]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

So basically, making it easy for criminals to get weapons doesn't bother you? Got it. That is kind of like saying people are going to drive illegally anyways so why should we make them obtain a license. I mean what harm would there be in preventing convicted felons from purchasing guns legally?

I understand what you're saying, but I'll disagree to an extent.
IMO, the criminals will obtain weaons regardless of how easy it is or not. If we made it nearly impossible, they would still get them.
So from my standpoint, I don't want a ton of uncessary restrictions placed on me, a legal ower/citizen or whatever, because of criminals. (if that makes any sense).

Personally, I think gun control laws/restrictions are just fine where they are.

*edit*. Brock beat me to it.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Brock

I'm fine with whatever laws you want to make that affect only criminals as long as it doesn't affect me.

That's a regulation, for what it's worth.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

That's a regulation, for what it's worth.

It's a regulation affecting criminals. I already plowed this ground with you.

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by Dayze

I understand what you're saying, but I'll disagree to an extent.
IMO, the criminals will obtain weaons regardless of how easy it is or not. If we made it nearly impossible, they would still get them.
So from my standpoint, I don't want a ton of uncessary restrictions placed on me, a legal ower/citizen or whatever, because of criminals. (if that makes any sense).

Personally, I think gun control laws/restrictions are just fine where they are.

Same here.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Brock

It's a regulation affecting criminals.

Constitutional, then?

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini

Here's a novel idea:

How about we take mental disorders more seriously? Most of these shooters are on some sort of anti-depressant. It's amazing how we dismiss a mental disease it's really no different than say diabetes.

Guns aren't the problem.

I agree with this. I am a mental health professional and it amazes me how many people have a negative stigma about their psychological issues and instead of working on them, they just pop a pill.

Do you guys realize that there are physicians out there that give anti-depressants and other medications to 3 and 4 year olds to treat what they think is bipolar disorder. But in actuality these kids are, well, being kids acting appropriate for their age. Part of the blame is also on the parents for being so inept that they immediately take their child to receive medications for "misbehaving" when in actuality the parents are poor at their responsiblities and instead of taking the time to deal with it, they pop in a medication, which is essentially like sweeping the issue under the rug, unfortunately they aren't sweeping the correct issue under the rug to begin with.

[Dayze]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

I agree with this. I am a mental health professional and it amazes me how many people have a negative stigma about their psychological issues and instead of working on them, they just pop a pill.

Do you guys realize that there are physicians out there that give anti-depressants and other medications to 3 and 4 year olds to treat what they think is bipolar disorder. But in actuality these kids are, well, being kids acting appropriate for their age. Part of the blame is also on the parents for being so inept that they immediately take their child to receive medications for "misbehaving" when in actuality the parents are poor at their responsiblities and instead of taking the time to deal with it, they pop in a medication, which is essentially like sweeping the issue under the rug, unfortunately they aren't sweeping the correct issue under the rug to begin with.

yikes man.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Constitutional, then?

Criminals do forfeit certain constitutional rights. Not a problem for me.

How about you just go ahead and state what you meant when you said "I'm in favor of tightening gun laws", instead of asking me to what extent I'm in favor of it. I can answer that question to me with "nearly none". Now you.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by Brock

It is easy for criminals to get guns. No, it doesn't bother me. I'm fine with whatever laws you want to make that affect only criminals as long as it doesn't affect me. I'm just informing you that it won't keep criminals from obtaining guns. It's a silly, naive notion that you need to think about a little more.

Don't be silly. Of course I don't think criminals won't get what they are looking for. I am simply saying we could stand to make it a little more difficult. It is nice to hear someone with your stance and value of guns say that they don't mind more laws as long as they only affect criminals. I mean, nobody (except criminals I guess) would oppose it, so why not enforce it.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

Don't be silly. Of course I don't think criminals won't get what they are looking for. I am simply saying we could stand to make it a little more difficult. It is nice to hear someone with your stance and value of guns say that they don't mind more laws as long as they only affect criminals. I mean, nobody (except criminals I guess) would oppose it, so why not enforce it.

It won't be a little more difficult. It won't be any more difficult. I can buy an illegal weapon today, right now, with a phone call.

[listopencil]

I don't know, I guess it is pretty cut-and-dry for me. Out in the real world, with the exception of specific random situations, you are going to have three groups of people that may be in armed conflict at any time.

(1)Authority figures like a policeman on patrol.

(2)Law abiding citizens who carry weapons and use them responsibly.

(3)Criminals, or people who engage in criminal behavior while using a firearm.

I, personally, want to keep (2) as well armed as possible, (1) as well armed as is reasonable and (3) as poorly armed as possible. Gun control legislation will not effect (1), has little to no effect on (3), and will most likely pose a significant restraint on (2).


Fail.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by listopencil

I don't know, I guess it is pretty cut-and-dry for me. Out in the real world, with the exception of specific random situations, you are going to have three groups of people that may be in armed conflict at any time.

(1)Authority figures like a policeman on patrol.

(2)Law abiding citizens who carry weapons and use them responsibly.

(3)Criminals, or people who engage in criminal behavior while using a firearm.

I, personally, want to keep (2) as well armed as possible, (1) as well armed as is reasonable and (3) as poorly armed as possible. Gun control legislation will not effect (1), has little to no effect on (3), and will most likely pose a significant restraint on (2).


Fail.

Simple, logical, to the point. +1