Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
mouse

Boy Scouts of America

76 posts in this topic

In the professional psychiatric world there are still arguments about whether crimes of passion are indeed real or not something made up by defense lawyers to get their clients off the hook. It's your responsibility to put your feelings in check and let the proper authorities take care of it. If you commit a crime of passion while it is understandable you still let your feelings and emotions get the best of you which a lot of times are signs of a deranged or mentally unstable person.

To put it in persoective, most of the psychiatric community reject the notion of temporary insanity. You are either mentally ill, recovering, or stable.

I understand that. I did not once make the argument that one must be temporarily insane to commit a crime. I was more saying that becoming so upset as to do something very rash is not an insane thing, it's quite normal and people do it all the time. It doesn't always result in a killing, but more often an uncalled for remark made or something less extreme than a murder. My point is that sometimes though, a person may become so upset that he/she would murder someone and this is the demographic I'd be trying to protect society from with requiring wait times and extra checks before being able to purchase a gun. You see what I'm saying?

And don't tell me a stable person doesn't kill because that's bullsh!t since if that was the case, everyone would plead insanity at trial.

Edited by ATLL765

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have to drive to a store to buy the gun or wait for it to be delivered by UPS then it's no longer a rash crime of passion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have to drive to a store to buy the gun or wait for it to be delivered by UPS then it's no longer a rash crime of passion.

Are you serious right now? You've never been so mad about something that you made a bad decision due to it? I am not trying to make excuses for people who kill, but I'm just saying that people that do that are not that different from you or I. I don't know you well, but I'm sure at some point in your life, your brother or sister or girlfriend or parent or somebody has done something that when you found out about it, could not wait to see them in order to give them a piece of your mind, am I wrong? Now, seeing as I'm sure that's happened to you a number of times, as well as to every other person on the planet, have you ever regretted saying or doing something in the process of giving that person a piece of your mind? If so, that's the person I'm looking to prevent from being able to get a gun within 72 hours or so. 30 mins or even 1,2,3 or even 6 hours is not enough time to make me feel safe that a person can think over a decision like that and gain a more enlightened perspective on their situation. If you can isolate a person who has become that upset and force them to wait over 2-3 days to purchase a weapon, it will become much less likely that the person will seek that as a resolution to their problem.

That being said, preventing that person from buying a gun is not going to prevent them from being violent, but even if that person buys a knife instead, the situation is far less likely to result in someone or multiple someones death(s).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I've never been so mad that I broke my cell phone an hour after whatever made me mad. I think the amount of people who get mad enough that they drive to a store buy a gun, go home, and shoot the person is amazingly small. No higher than the amount of people who get in their car and drive into their house on purpose trying to hurt someone.

Crimes of passion have to be in the moment, if you're rational enough to go and buy a gun you're not going to be considered in the heat of the moment and I personally don't think they're still in the heat of the moment.

Edited by Devils731

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I've never been so mad that I broke my cell phone an hour after whatever made me mad. I think the amount of people who get mad enough that they drive to a store buy a gun, go home, and shoot the person is amazingly small. No higher than the amount of people who get in their car and drive into their house on purpose trying to hurt someone.

Crimes of passion have to be in the moment, if you're rational enough to go and buy a gun you're not going to be considered in the heat of the moment and I personally don't think they're still in the heat of the moment.

What about the person who bought a gun years ago for a completely innocuous/legit reason (ie home protection or sport), and then shoots someone in a crime of passion down the line purely because the gun was accessible? IE the guy who catches his wife in bed with another man or the kid who got the sh!t kicked out of him? There's countless stories of murder occurring simply because a gun was accessible and the perpetrator later feeling guilty about it.

There's a big difference between premeditation which is what you're describing and a crime of passion.

Edited by ghdi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the person who bought a gun years ago for a completely innocuous/legit reason (ie home protection or sport), and then shoots someone in a crime of passion down the line purely because the gun was accessible? IE the guy who catches his wife in bed with another man or the kid who got the sh!t kicked out of him? There's countless stories of murder occurring simply because a gun was accessible and the perpetrator later feeling guilty about it.

There's a big difference between premeditation which is what you're describing and a crime of passion.

He's only talking about making the length of time to get a gun longer to prevent someone buying a gun for immediate use in violence. It had nothing to do with what you're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll address your 2nd paragraph first by saying in general I agree with that. No need for heavy assault rifles to be sold to the general public.

When someone actually defines "assault rifle" or "tactical rifle", there might be the start of an informed debate.

The "assault weapons" our politicians are arguing about are basically high capacity, semi-automatic rifles, i.e. scary looking rifles. That's it. When the same assault weapons ban was in effect, even it's proponents couldn't attribute any drop in violent crime to it, since they are rarely, rarely ever used in crimes.

What the Democratic party and guys like Bloomberg really want, even if they don't want to admit it, is a complete ban on private ownership of any gun that can be used for self-defense. Why do you think the Obama administration attempted to defend DC's unconstitutional ban on private firearm ownership? And why do you think Obama can't bring himself to say that individuals have a right to possess guns for self-defense. In every speech he's made on the issue, he always says guns have a place because of the long tradition of "hunting." This from a guy who fancies himself a constitutional law scholar.

And re Holmes and supposedly lax Colorado gun laws. Holmes did not have a concealed carry license. What is more, the theater actually barred concealed weapons and actually conspicuously informed patrons of that.

Bottom line, every law abiding citizen in this country has a god-given right to defend himself, with a firearm if necessary. The state does not have a monopoly on the use of violence, nor should it. You want to argue about things like concealed carry or "assault weapons", knock yourself out. Outlaw them if you want, won't have a mouse fart's effect on crime.

EDIT: Facepalm, Obama wasn't in office when SCOTUS ruled on DC handgun ban.

Edited by Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And re Holmes and supposedly lax Colorado gun laws. Holmes did not have a concealed carry license. What is more, the theater actually barred concealed weapons and actually conspicuously informed patrons of that.

Conversation over. Criminals will always have guns! End of story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conversation over. Criminals will always have guns! End of story.

Not true. If you make it harder to get weapons in a large nation such as the US, the number of criminals with guns will drop. This will be because of two reasons, availability and price. Since a nationwide ban(on non hunting type rifles or shotguns not saying a ban on all weapons, but same would apply for that) would make the supply of guns smaller, the price goes up. The idea is that you make the supply small enough that you are going to make guns too pricey for the average corner boy, street thug, wtv to buy and too expensive for a whole organization to provide weapons to it's "employees". While it is IMPOSSIBLE to eliminate anything from an entire country, whether it be drugs, prostitution, guns, etc, limiting the supply will increase it's price and decrease the number of crimes associated with that particular item seeing as less people would have them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true. If you make it harder to get weapons in a large nation such as the US, the number of criminals with guns will drop. This will be because of two reasons, availability and price. Since a nationwide ban(on non hunting type rifles or shotguns not saying a ban on all weapons, but same would apply for that) would make the supply of guns smaller, the price goes up. The idea is that you make the supply small enough that you are going to make guns too pricey for the average corner boy, street thug, wtv to buy and too expensive for a whole organization to provide weapons to it's "employees". While it is IMPOSSIBLE to eliminate anything from an entire country, whether it be drugs, prostitution, guns, etc, limiting the supply will increase it's price and decrease the number of crimes associated with that particular item seeing as less people would have them.

They've tried that with heroin and cocaine and people get that just fine. I suppose it's a little more difficult than if you could get it at CVS, but it's abundant. People without a pot to piss in will spend all of their income on drugs. A street thug that makes his living on violence will find the money necessary to purchase a gun.

The people who will have guns if there is a ban are criminals. The vast majority of street thugs don't buy them legally, but pay a premium for them on the blackmarket, which will continue to happen if there's a ban. For every mass shooting nut job who buys a gun legally, there are hundreds of street thugs, who are barred from owning a firearm because they won't pass a background check that don't. If there is any kind of drop off it'll be marginal at best. In the meantime, law abiding citizens who would otherwise want to arm themselves will be defenseless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true. If you make it harder to get weapons in a large nation such as the US, the number of criminals with guns will drop. This will be because of two reasons, availability and price. Since a nationwide ban(on non hunting type rifles or shotguns not saying a ban on all weapons, but same would apply for that) would make the supply of guns smaller, the price goes up. The idea is that you make the supply small enough that you are going to make guns too pricey for the average corner boy, street thug, wtv to buy and too expensive for a whole organization to provide weapons to it's "employees". While it is IMPOSSIBLE to eliminate anything from an entire country, whether it be drugs, prostitution, guns, etc, limiting the supply will increase it's price and decrease the number of crimes associated with that particular item seeing as less people would have them.

Garbage. If anything, they should make it easier for law abiding citizens to get guns. If criminals knew more people were packing, there would be less crime. Criminals thrive because they know for the most part their prey is defenseless. If more people had guns, even if you chose not to carry, the criminal would not necessarily know of this. Think of if say ten members in the Batman audience in Colorado were packing. Obviously, it wouldn't have been avoided but perhaps it could have been stopped sooner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Garbage. If anything, they should make it easier for law abiding citizens to get guns. If criminals knew more people were packing, there would be less crime. Criminals thrive because they know for the most part their prey is defenseless. If more people had guns, even if you chose not to carry, the criminal would not necessarily know of this. Think of if say ten members in the Batman audience in Colorado were packing. Obviously, it wouldn't have been avoided but perhaps it could have been stopped sooner.

If, this thinking is true, then we should not be limiting firearms sales but rather subsidizing them. We already require citizens to be each other's keepers for things like helping the injured, so this would just be the next step. I'm a little concerned though that in a situation, like Colorado, where the good citizens must stop the mass murderer, that if they are not good enough at identifying the bad guy(s), that the good ones turn their guns on each other by mistake. That would be very regrettable, though if it were rare, I guess it would be better than having killers get 100 more people in between.

Crimes of passion, confusion, and accidents are my main concerns with making guns pervasive; vigilanteism a bit less so. In an ideal world, we would develop some self-defense mechanism that's actually defensive, rather than fighting fire with fire. Sounds like science-fiction though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If, this thinking is true, then we should not be limiting firearms sales but rather subsidizing them. We already require citizens to be each other's keepers for things like helping the injured, so this would just be the next step. I'm a little concerned though that in a situation, like Colorado, where the good citizens must stop the mass murderer, that if they are not good enough at identifying the bad guy(s), that the good ones turn their guns on each other by mistake. That would be very regrettable, though if it were rare, I guess it would be better than having killers get 100 more people in between.

Crimes of passion, confusion, and accidents are my main concerns with making guns pervasive; vigilanteism a bit less so. In an ideal world, we would develop some self-defense mechanism that's actually defensive, rather than fighting fire with fire. Sounds like science-fiction though.

It's not like they give concealed carry permits or licenses to anyone that shows up at the door. Even in Texas you need a background check, and for a concealed carry permit you need to sit through a class on what constitutes legal self-defense and be certified in gun safety. The "crimes of passion" with a firearm in any meaningful sense are very rare. Despite all the claims that road rage incidents are going to turn into blood baths, that hasn't really materialized.

Also, being able to own a firearm for self-defense, at least in your home, is a Constitutional right. Same as one has a right to vote or a right to free speech. Just because you have those rights, doesn't mean you are required to vote or to express political views.

Yes, it is true that legalized firearm possession probably result in more homicides. I say probably, because you can't measure the amount of homicides that are prevented by a law-abiding citizen having a gun. It's not just the amount of times that an armed person actually uses one in self-defense, but also the amount of times a criminal decides not to act by concluding that the potential victim will be armed. By the same token, due process requirements, such as the exclusionary rule, results in more homicides. All rights, including the right to bear arms, comes with a price that one should accept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying mandate it. Subsidize it. We offer driver's ed to students for free. A generalized self-defense course (not just about using guns) doesn't seem so ridiculous.

I don't consider a loose screw who decides to kill in a crime of passion to be the only danger though. You're kind of insane if you allow emotion to drive you that far. Most people who get really worked up though, (I think) want to hurt the targets of their anger, either physically, emotionally, or monetarily. It's more likely that the road-rager chooses to shoot at the person's tires than at their head, but the outcome could still be more than they bargained for.

As for criminals backing down, if they're really of a tough, dangerous mindset, they'll know that they still have the upper hand because their targets don't want to use the gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've tried that with heroin and cocaine and people get that just fine. I suppose it's a little more difficult than if you could get it at CVS, but it's abundant. People without a pot to piss in will spend all of their income on drugs. A street thug that makes his living on violence will find the money necessary to purchase a gun.

The people who will have guns if there is a ban are criminals. The vast majority of street thugs don't buy them legally, but pay a premium for them on the blackmarket, which will continue to happen if there's a ban. For every mass shooting nut job who buys a gun legally, there are hundreds of street thugs, who are barred from owning a firearm because they won't pass a background check that don't. If there is any kind of drop off it'll be marginal at best. In the meantime, law abiding citizens who would otherwise want to arm themselves will be defenseless.

You're comparing apples to oranges here. Drugs aren't manufactured by reputable organizations that have to comply with laws as guns are. Drugs are able to be sold in a truly free market system and are not subject to rules and regulations in the same way that legitimately manufactured goods are. It's not like there's a way to buy a weapon without it first being bought legally. I'm sure some weapons come from overseas, but I doubt that accounts for a large portion of guns in this country or even guns used in the process of committing a crime. Therefore it's not like a guy can say forget buying a gun from the store, I'm gonna go to my underground gun dealer to buy it. If drugs were legal, I'd GUARANTEE you that people would pay more to buy it from a legitimate source than from the black market. Plus when there's a legal avenue to purchase, the black market it usually just a resale of legally purchased weapons at a slightly higher price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're comparing apples to oranges here. Drugs aren't manufactured by reputable organizations that have to comply with laws as guns are. Drugs are able to be sold in a truly free market system and are not subject to rules and regulations in the same way that legitimately manufactured goods are. It's not like there's a way to buy a weapon without it first being bought legally. I'm sure some weapons come from overseas, but I doubt that accounts for a large portion of guns in this country or even guns used in the process of committing a crime. Therefore it's not like a guy can say forget buying a gun from the store, I'm gonna go to my underground gun dealer to buy it. If drugs were legal, I'd GUARANTEE you that people would pay more to buy it from a legitimate source than from the black market. Plus when there's a legal avenue to purchase, the black market it usually just a resale of legally purchased weapons at a slightly higher price.

What you're saying might be somewhat relevant if you could somehow go back in time and put the government in control of all arms manufacuring and distribution. Otherwise, what you're suggesting involves making criminals of about 50 million people overnight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey mouse, just wanted to commend you for what you did.

I'm also enjoying the blatant ignorance from the right wing in this thread. It's really great.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey mouse, just wanted to commend you for what you did.

I'm also enjoying the blatant ignorance from the right wing in this thread. It's really great.

AMEN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey mouse, just wanted to commend you for what you did.

I'm also enjoying the blatant ignorance from the right wing in this thread. It's really great.

Hear-hear!

You're okay in my book, Mouse.

Keep fightin' the good fight!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this thread was about the Boy Scouts?

I learned to shoot a .22 when I was in the Scouts. I am disappointed in the position they have taken regarding gay boys. How do they tell if an eleven year old kid is gay? The thing I most liked about Scouts was that you didn't have to be any kind of an athlete to advance. And I wasn't much of an athlete, believe me. IMHO, the Scouts should be open to all boys, not just the ones who pass the gaydar test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this thread was about the Boy Scouts?

I learned to shoot a .22 when I was in the Scouts. I am disappointed in the position they have taken regarding gay boys. How do they tell if an eleven year old kid is gay? The thing I most liked about Scouts was that you didn't have to be any kind of an athlete to advance. And I wasn't much of an athlete, believe me. IMHO, the Scouts should be open to all boys, not just the ones who pass the gaydar test.

I think the real issue isn't so much gay children, seeing as until kids get closer to their teen years I doubt one would really be able to tell, but rather boy scouts who have grown up and now want to give back to the boy scouts by being a scout leader, wtv and that if they're gay, they're locked out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mouse, if it makes you feel any better, 1994 Mitt Romney stands behind you 100%: "I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you're saying might be somewhat relevant if you could somehow go back in time and put the government in control of all arms manufacuring and distribution. Otherwise, what you're suggesting involves making criminals of about 50 million people overnight.

I don't know what you're talking about. All I was saying is that when there's a legal avenue and an illegal one, people usually try the legal one first. I was never suggesting that gov't need to control manufacture and distribution of all weapons. I only was saying that comparing gun control to drug enforcement is silly and wasn't a very good comparison.

Secondly, less guns=less crime. That is not my opinion, that is scientific fact that is backed up by large amounts of data in many studies. I will not argue this because facts aren't disputable, especially not this one. As someone said before, having more people with guns doesn't make anyone safer. This is especially so with incidents involving crowded areas, i.e. Columbine, Aurora, etc. When it's crowded and it's unclear what is going on because you jumped to ground too fast to see a shooter, then you peek out and oh gee, thank goodness, there's 12 other people with guns now all firing in different direction, but don't worry, they killed the initial shooter with one bullet.......it's just too bad they killed 40 other people afterwards because no one knew who was who. That's how that situation is going to go. This is NOT because it's impossible to use guns safely, but rather that the people with guns would need EXTENSIVE training and range time to be efficient and accurate enough a shot to react and decipher which idiot with the gun is the real shooter and which others think they're fvcking John Wayne.

Thirdly, even if the gun laws are relaxed to where every man, woman and child can legally buy a ak-47 with free grenade launcher attachment! It doesn't change the fact that many private business don't think that makes their places of business safer and won't let you in with it anyways and that's their right to refuse entry. So I still don't see how more people carrying guns outside a place of business save the people being shot, unbeknownst to them, inside of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what you're talking about. All I was saying is that when there's a legal avenue and an illegal one, people usually try the legal one first. I was never suggesting that gov't need to control manufacture and distribution of all weapons. I only was saying that comparing gun control to drug enforcement is silly and wasn't a very good comparison.

Secondly, less guns=less crime. That is not my opinion, that is scientific fact that is backed up by large amounts of data in many studies. I will not argue this because facts aren't disputable, especially not this one. As someone said before, having more people with guns doesn't make anyone safer. This is especially so with incidents involving crowded areas, i.e. Columbine, Aurora, etc. When it's crowded and it's unclear what is going on because you jumped to ground too fast to see a shooter, then you peek out and oh gee, thank goodness, there's 12 other people with guns now all firing in different direction, but don't worry, they killed the initial shooter with one bullet.......it's just too bad they killed 40 other people afterwards because no one knew who was who. That's how that situation is going to go. This is NOT because it's impossible to use guns safely, but rather that the people with guns would need EXTENSIVE training and range time to be efficient and accurate enough a shot to react and decipher which idiot with the gun is the real shooter and which others think they're fvcking John Wayne.

Thirdly, even if the gun laws are relaxed to where every man, woman and child can legally buy a ak-47 with free grenade launcher attachment! It doesn't change the fact that many private business don't think that makes their places of business safer and won't let you in with it anyways and that's their right to refuse entry. So I still don't see how more people carrying guns outside a place of business save the people being shot, unbeknownst to them, inside of it.

You are over looking the simple fact that criminals will always have guns. Always. End of story. I want to be able to defend myself legally god forbid I ever encounter a situation like that.

Obviously, there are grounds where they definitely shouldn't be permitted. Sporting events, most office workplaces. But if I'm on my own time, doing my own thing going to the grocery store, heading back to my car in an empty mall parking lot, you bet you behind I want to be able to defend myself. Even if I choose not to, if it was allowed, the potential criminal would not know if I was armed or not. Just the fact that I MIGHT be armed defends myself in a lot of situations.

Perhaps, only allow guns that can fire 1-2 shots max.

That said, I am for the harshest penalties possible for people that go off the deep end. Unlike Norway, I believe, where the man who shot up school children is detained to a 'jail' apartment for 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is NOT because it's impossible to use guns safely, but rather that the people with guns would need EXTENSIVE training and range time to be efficient and accurate enough a shot to react and decipher which idiot with the gun is the real shooter and which others think they're fvcking John Wayne.

There's evidence that training time and proficiency at training doesn't tell you anything about how well someone will handle a gun in a real life situation. Having live fire going off around you is too different and fear inducing to simulate or prepare for in a training environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0