A Sane Discussion About Gun Violence

[Teallaura]

There is a strong and increasing break with reality in the nation today. I recognize the reality, but I see the result as bad. Are you suggesting that just putting my guns in a safe is not enough to clear me of responsibility? Do I need another locked box inside the locked box inside my locked house? Where does the insanity end.

And you are wrong, I never suggested that kids were different in my day, just that the nation was not quite as insane as it is today.

If you know you have a relation who is criminally insane, actually, that case could be true - but no, for the most part I'd argue that secured weapons stolen by very determined thieves do not result in further liability.

Unless you made it easy for the thieves in some other way. It's perfectly reasonable for gun owners to be responsible for securing their weapons with more than a pane of glass.

[Jedidiah]

If you know you have a relation who is criminally insane, actually, that case could be true - but no, for the most part I'd argue that secured weapons stolen by very determined thieves do not result in further liability.

Unless you made it easy for the thieves in some other way. It's perfectly reasonable for gun owners to be responsible for securing their weapons with more than a pane of glass.

There are criminally insane folks in the world. I am not responsible for them in any sane way. It is only the current level of pathology that makes any of that even seem sane. I know it is the law, but it is still insane.

[ke7ejx]

Disingenuous again - you understood the simile perfectly well and most certainly have used that line of reasoning.

Now you're trying to dodge the issue. You know fully well you're expected to back up your statements especially if you are going to go after someone's character.

[Teallaura]

This has become much less of a sand discussion and more like a nursery school. Teal and Adrift are the main guilty ones in this respect. I still love you guys though. Really I do.

No, Jed, Adrift hasn't been the problem - you and I have. You want to pretend that it's okay to make fun of me like you did, fine - it does nothing for the sanity nor the civility of the conversation nor does it make me respect your position.

I had a neighbor killed for the crime of standing in his own living room when I was a kid - and a number of my pets killed (how the heck do you mistake an orange cat for a deer?!?!?) by idiots with guns. I lost a friend to a moronic accident - someone threw a loaded weapon. I've been shot at multiple times within a hundred yards of my home. Honestly, it's better now - the law doesn't turn a blind eye to 'hunting accidents' like it once did. But that kind of irresponsible use of firearms - then deflecting to arguments about other possible weapons as if firearms weren't significant force multipliers - that's just more of the culture of gun irresponsibility that killed my friends, my pets and darn near got me once.

Rationally, I don't think the abolition argument is fair. But if it's a choice between that and gun owners who think they literally have no responsibility for their weapons - heck no - abolish them. The Constitution can be amended so the Second is not an insurmountable bar.

but just laugh at me for being too whatever - it's all your gonna do anyway.

I'm done.

Ke, I think you have your answer.

Sorry Carpe.

[ke7ejx]

We seem to be in agreement on criminal convictions. I had not considered "public threats" but it makes sense. That leaves us with "mental health." Are you eliminating "mental health" entirely as a basis for limiting access? So someone clinically diagnosed to be bipolar or schizophrenic? Someone with diagnosed cognitive impairments (i.e., adults with reasoning levels of children). Would you place an age restriction on gun ownership?



Absolutely - and especially given the passion I believe you have for this subject.

I agree with an age restriction. I think 21 would be appropriate. However, I do get nervous about the mental health bit. I'm a registered gun owner who deals with 4 chronic conditions that cause excruciating pain. The gun laws trying to be passed in Oregon would target me in two ways: a) I deal with depression and anxiety from being in various levels of pain 24/7 and some would consider me "a safety risk" and could appeal to the circuit court to force me to hand in my gun and b) I am prescribed medical cannabis to treat my symptoms. I treat it with edibles that are much higher in CBD than THC so I don't even feel a high but again, lobbyist are also trying to pass a bill that could force me to hand in my gun.

I agree something needs to be addressed in regards to mental health but I'm not about to allow my rights to be curtailed when I am not a safety risk.

[KingsGambit]

According to year by year charts i'm looking at australia gun ban seems to have no correlation with homicide rates







Suicide rates shouldn't be part of the discussion at all. A suicide isn't something that happens to you that is out of your control, like a massacre or a home invasion. It's something you do to yourself.

I agree with an age restriction. I think 21 would be appropriate. However, I do get nervous about the mental health bit. I'm a registered gun owner who deals with 4 chronic conditions that cause excruciating pain. The gun laws trying to be passed in Oregon would target me in two ways: a) I deal with depression and anxiety from being in various levels of pain 24/7 and some would consider me "a safety risk" and could appeal to the circuit court to force me to hand in my gun and b) I am prescribed medical cannabis to treat my symptoms. I treat it with edibles that are much higher in CBD than THC so I don't even feel a high but again, lobbyist are also trying to pass a bill that could force me to hand in my gun.

I agree something needs to be addressed in regards to mental health but I'm not about to allow my rights to be curtailed when I am not a safety risk.

The risk of demonizing people with mental illnesses is ever-present in this debate, and people tend to do so without a second thought.

[Darth Executor]

The risk of demonizing people with mental illnesses is ever-present in this debate, and people tend to do so without a second thought.

wow

[Cow Poke]

The risk of demonizing people with mental illnesses is ever-present in this debate, and people tend to do so without a second thought.

Care to expound upon this? "ever-present"?

[KingsGambit]

Care to expound upon this? "ever-present"?

I just mean it's always a risk when the subject of mental illness come up. ke's post expresses concerns about her losing her rights as a result of that aspect of the debate.

[ke7ejx]

In the case of a 'mass shooter', they often don't give a flyin' flip about laws or consequences, because they often plan on "going out in a blaze of glory", and there is nobody to prosecute.

Very true. According to the Washington Post, a majority of mass shootings begin with the theft of an otherwise legally obtained gun. About 79% to be exact.

[Cow Poke]

I just mean it's always a risk when the subject of mental illness come up. ke's post expresses concerns about her losing her rights as a result of that aspect of the debate.

OK, thanks. She's different, though - she's a Punkinhead.

[KingsGambit]

OK, thanks. She's different, though - she's a Punkinhead.

But it's a delicate subject because the issue can't be dismissed altogether, you know? Undeniably there are some people who simply shouldn't have guns due to conditions they have. Determining who those people are without lumping in other people is difficult.

[Cow Poke]

But it's a delicate subject because the issue can't be dismissed altogether, you know?

Yes, sir.

Undeniably there are some people who simply shouldn't have guns due to conditions they have. Determining who those people are without lumping in other people is difficult.

I can't even imagine how that could get sorted out.

[ke7ejx]

And I put that "your" there on purpose - grammar Nazi!

Troll

[Darth Executor]

I just mean it's always a risk when the subject of mental illness come up. ke's post expresses concerns about her losing her rights as a result of that aspect of the debate.

but why is my post quoted i never said the mentally ill should lose their rights. quite the opposite, i objected to the use of the mentally ill as a pretext to strip others of their rights