75 replies to this topic

[ATLL765]

Mouse, I respect your decision to do what you believe is right. I do, however, see why the Boy Scouts do not want to change its policy. It is a socially conservative organization, and it would like to stay that way. But the Boy Scouts is under enormous pressure to jump in the pool of gay politics, when it has no desire to be there, and has no desire to sexualize its organization. But the mainstream liberal media, as I see it, is ganging up on the Boy Scouts. I have not read ANY mainstream media story defending the Scouts' right to freedom of association. I find that disheartening.

I'll bet the Boy Scouts is looking at what has happened to the Girl Scouts, and it is very concerned. Girl Scouts has been sexualized, and it's inappropriate. The Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood are partners, and I know parents of preteen girls who are none too happy about it. In general, Girl Scouts has become a place for girls to be indoctrinated in liberal politics.

My opinion is that groups like the Boy Scouts and, since it's in the news, Chick-fil-a should keep to providing a service and stop making things political. It's retarded. When I buy fast food, I just want my fat filled meal, not to think about how eating my grease covered sh!t burger represents how I do or don't approve gay marriage, abortion, whatever. The Boy Scouts should just not care about whether people are gay or not. It should be a matter of sticking to their code. If they provide the same service as a straight person would, who the hell cares what they do in their own home? I seriously do not care in the least whether people have gay sex, smoke crack, or even cross dress if they do it on their own time and it doesn't affect them providing the service they are responsible for. These are all just people and if they can serve me food or teach a kid to be able to light a fire in the woods, or whatever, the way expected of anyone, I DO NOT GIVE A FLYING fvck what they do outside of that job.

Right so anything a liberal does is contempt for America.


After the Aurora shooting I saw as many or more people clamoring for easier access to guns so they could defend themselves than people shouting for more gun control, but I'm sure in your eyes those people aren't trying to capitalize on a tragedy because it's not a liberal stance. That is one of the most outrageous posts I've ever seen.

You also gotta love that Colorado has ultra lax gun laws and the fact that those lax gun laws didn't result in the gunman being struck down without incident doesn't show that easy access provides ZERO aid in stopping crime, yet still people are spewing idiocy about how more guns=safer, lol. There's only been a myriad of studies that show less guns=less homocides/less crimes involving guns, but ya know, all those damn scientist are just backing up their secret lefty science agenda....

Edited by ATLL765, 27 July 2012 - 02:02 PM.

[DevsMan84]

My opinion is that groups like the Boy Scouts and, since it's in the news, Chick-fil-a should keep to providing a service and stop making things political. It's retarded. When I buy fast food, I just want my fat filled meal, not to think about how eating my grease covered sh!t burger represents how I do or don't approve gay marriage, abortion, whatever. The Boy Scouts should just not care about whether people are gay or not. It should be a matter of sticking to their code. If they provide the same service as a straight person would, who the hell cares what they do in their own home? I seriously do not care in the least whether people have gay sex, smoke crack, or even cross dress if they do it on their own time and it doesn't affect them providing the service they are responsible for. These are all just people and if they can serve me food or teach a kid to be able to light a fire in the woods, or whatever, the way expected of anyone, I DO NOT GIVE A FLYING fvck what they do outside of that job.



You also gotta love that Colorado has ultra lax gun laws and the fact that those lax gun laws didn't result in the gunman being struck down without incident doesn't show that easy access provides ZERO aid in stopping crime, yet still people are spewing idiocy about how more guns=safer, lol. There's only been a myriad of studies that show less guns=less homocides/less crimes involving guns, but ya know, all those damn scientist are just backing up their secret lefty science agenda....

IDK about you but I wouldn't want my kid be near a person who smokes crack, even if it is on their own time.

There is a study for everything.

One of my favorite pictures going around is one where a guy is holding a sign saying to the effect of "guns kill people." There is a guy standing next to him saying something to the effect of "If that's true then spoons made me fat."

Why cant we just chalk this up to a crazy lunatic going on a rampage? The guy in Norway where there are less guns and guns are illegal except for military and law enforcement didn't have much of a problem getting them on his rampage.

[ATLL765]

IDK about you but I wouldn't want my kid be near a person who smokes crack, even if it is on their own time.

There is a study for everything.

One of my favorite pictures going around is one where a guy is holding a sign saying to the effect of "guns kill people." There is a guy standing next to him saying something to the effect of "If that's true then spoons made me fat."

Why cant we just chalk this up to a crazy lunatic going on a rampage? The guy in Norway where there are less guns and guns are illegal except for military and law enforcement didn't have much of a problem getting them on his rampage.

It's because it's not just about these freak events. You're right about how if someone really wants to go on a killing spree, guns or no guns, they can find a way to do it. The purpose is that if you have someone who is borderline, by having easy access to guns, you make it easy to kill. If it's harder to get guns, you provide a person who may be mentally ill or maybe just having a bad day, week, month, whatever, the time to seriously think about what they are doing. You also make it so a person has to really be committed in order to do something like this since they can't just walk into a store, buy a gun, walk out and start shooting.

I am in no way advocating that guns don't have a place in American society, I'm just saying, you don't need tactical weapons. It should be limited to weapons solely for hunting and possibly handguns that are limited by the amount of bullets it can carry, i.e. revolvers or maybe forcing manufacturers to provide clips that limit the number of bullets able to be carried in the gun so that it's enough to scare off an intruder, but not enough to kill a ton of people with. Like with a revolver, you have 6 shots, if you can't scare off an intruder with 6 shots, you're either a terrible shot or you were screwed anyways.

[DevsMan84]

It's because it's not just about these freak events. You're right about how if someone really wants to go on a killing spree, guns or no guns, they can find a way to do it. The purpose is that if you have someone who is borderline, by having easy access to guns, you make it easy to kill. If it's harder to get guns, you provide a person who may be mentally ill or maybe just having a bad day, week, month, whatever, the time to seriously think about what they are doing. You also make it so a person has to really be committed in order to do something like this since they can't just walk into a store, buy a gun, walk out and start shooting.

I am in no way advocating that guns don't have a place in American society, I'm just saying, you don't need tactical weapons. It should be limited to weapons solely for hunting and possibly handguns that are limited by the amount of bullets it can carry, i.e. revolvers or maybe forcing manufacturers to provide clips that limit the number of bullets able to be carried in the gun so that it's enough to scare off an intruder, but not enough to kill a ton of people with. Like with a revolver, you have 6 shots, if you can't scare off an intruder with 6 shots, you're either a terrible shot or you were screwed anyways.

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.

As for the first part, even without easy access to handguns a person who is mentally ill will kill if left untreated and exposed to the public. My gf works in a mental health facility dealing mostly with addicitions, but she sometimes gets assigned a shift in the in-patient section where there are people who are seriously ill. I am talking about sociopaths, and sometimes potential and convicted rapists and murderers. She has told me many times that even taking a gun or weapon out of their hands if these people were in the general public they could easily kill another person who just happened to be walking the other way. By what I have heard about James Holmes, he is seriously mentally ill and even if he had either a knife or fists, someone was most likely going to get killed. What I am saying is that guns or no guns, James Holmes would be a killer no matter what.

[Devils Pride 26]

Criminals will always have guns/weapons. Defend yourself. My link

[DevsMan84]

Criminals will always have guns/weapons. Defend yourself. My link

Funny how these stories of people using guns to end a horrific situation rarely make the front page and in many times the news at all.

[ATLL765]

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.

As for the first part, even without easy access to handguns a person who is mentally ill will kill if left untreated and exposed to the public. My gf works in a mental health facility dealing mostly with addicitions, but she sometimes gets assigned a shift in the in-patient section where there are people who are seriously ill. I am talking about sociopaths, and sometimes potential and convicted rapists and murderers. She has told me many times that even taking a gun or weapon out of their hands if these people were in the general public they could easily kill another person who just happened to be walking the other way. By what I have heard about James Holmes, he is seriously mentally ill and even if he had either a knife or fists, someone was most likely going to get killed. What I am saying is that guns or no guns, James Holmes would be a killer no matter what.

I understand that some crimes are not preventable and that usually includes crimes committed by seriously ill people. I'm not talking about that though. I'm talkjing about people who are on the edge of sanity and insanity. By limiting access to weaponry, you may dissuade someone from committing a crime by making it more difficult for them to purchase a weapon.

I mean, have you ever wanted to do something, but because you didn't have the time to do it or maybe learn to do it, you said "nah, forget it". This is the person I'm talking about when it comes to making guns harder to get. It's about having that person who is on the edge say, "nah, forget it" because getting a weapons would require too much time and maybe a check that would bring up a red flag if that person has a history of violence, mental issues, etc.

[DevsMan84]

I understand that some crimes are not preventable and that usually includes crimes committed by seriously ill people. I'm not talking about that though. I'm talkjing about people who are on the edge of sanity and insanity. By limiting access to weaponry, you may dissuade someone from committing a crime by making it more difficult for them to purchase a weapon.

I mean, have you ever wanted to do something, but because you didn't have the time to do it or maybe learn to do it, you said "nah, forget it". This is the person I'm talking about when it comes to making guns harder to get. It's about having that person who is on the edge say, "nah, forget it" because getting a weapons would require too much time and maybe a check that would bring up a red flag if that person has a history of violence, mental issues, etc.

Usually when a guy snaps and starts killing people, they were not on the edge. They were already over it. If the person is stable, then he would always say nah, forget it. When a person is unstable he coule say nah, forget it 99 times out of 100, but that 1 time will prove he was never stable to begin with.

I am basing this off of what my gf has told and taught me over the past few years about her job. There are indeed a lot of gray areas but not as much as one would think.

[ATLL765]

Usually when a guy snaps and starts killing people, they were not on the edge. They were already over it. If the person is stable, then he would always say nah, forget it. When a person is unstable he coule say nah, forget it 99 times out of 100, but that 1 time will prove he was never stable to begin with.

I am basing this off of what my gf has told and taught me over the past few years about her job. There are indeed a lot of gray areas but not as much as one would think.

You are telling me that there has never been a person to commit a "crime of passion"? Really? No person has ever committed a crime where if they had given themselves a bit of time to allow them to gain a bit of perspective on the situation, they would have been able to see that committing the crime is not the best choice? Come on, that's just silly.

I myself have been in similar situations. I didn't kill anyone, but I have been made to be so angry that I've broken a cell phone before and then soon afterwards said to myself, "that was dumb". Has something like that ever happened to you? If so, do you see how providing time between when you want to do something and when you can actually do it can provide a person with the necessary perspective to make the better decision?

[DevsMan84]

You are telling me that there has never been a person to commit a "crime of passion"? Really? No person has ever committed a crime where if they had given themselves a bit of time to allow them to gain a bit of perspective on the situation, they would have been able to see that committing the crime is not the best choice? Come on, that's just silly.

I myself have been in similar situations. I didn't kill anyone, but I have been made to be so angry that I've broken a cell phone before and then soon afterwards said to myself, "that was dumb". Has something like that ever happened to you? If so, do you see how providing time between when you want to do something and when you can actually do it can provide a person with the necessary perspective to make the better decision?

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.

[ATLL765]

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, 28 July 2012 - 11:40 AM.

[Devils731]

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.

[ATLL765]

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).

[Devils731]

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, 29 July 2012 - 05:55 PM.

[ghdi]

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, 02 August 2012 - 09:43 PM.

[Devils731]

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.

[Daniel]

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, 03 August 2012 - 04:34 PM.

[Devils Pride 26]

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.

[ATLL765]

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.

[Daniel]

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.