AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2013-04-20, 14:49   Link #761
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badkarma 1 View Post
Yet it was an ordinary citizen who noticed things weren't right with his boat, and found the 19 year old killer! He then called the proper authorities. I'm surprised that some haven't said he should have stayed inside like directed!
My point, an ordinary, every day Joe found the scumbag, not John Law or Uncle, they were dependent on citizen help.
Is this some sort of surprise? The government doesn't have eyes everywhere (although in some cities it's trying). I'm not sure where your gun rant comes into play, though. Were the population heavily armed and looking to deliver justice itself there likely would have been a number of cases of innocent people firing on each other, somewhat similar to how the LAPD fired on some innocents in the Dorner case a few months back. People can make fun of police all they like, but if people trained with firearms and for confrontational situations react like that, how do you think the general population would fare?
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-20, 15:40   Link #762
Sackett
Cross Game - I need more
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: I've moved around the American West. I've lived in Oregon, Washington, Utah, and Oklahoma
Age: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solace View Post
As it turns out, majority votes in the Senate don't create public policy either. The 60 vote threshold due to filibusters is killing most legislature regardless of the party majority. We can argue about the "will of the people" and hold up all the polls we want, but this was a majority vote that wasn't actually a majority vote because it required a super majority to pass.

Blame Obama, or the families, or the NRA, whatever, but the inability to get anything done doesn't help any of us.

Speaking as someone who leans left, I'm not interested in doing away with the right to own guns. But guns are the primary instrument used in a lot of violence in the country, murder or suicide, doesn't matter.

It makes sense to ensure that everyone who purchases a gun is of sound mind and free of red flags like a criminal record. It makes sense to ensure that every gun produced and sold is registered and traceable, with the exception of grandfathered stuff of course.
1: Guns are already traceable. First by serial number, and second by firing pin patterns. Forensic science has been doing that for decades.

2: Why is it so important to have a gun registry? The only reason I see for it is so that later the government can confiscate our guns. Oh that's just paranoid black helicopter fantasy? Really? Why are they doing it right now in New York? They're going around confiscating people's guns because 10 years ago they took an anti-anxiety medicine. It was in the newspaper.

In my home state of Washington the Democrats tried to introduce a bill that would require you to register your guns, and then once a year the sheriff would be entitled to inspect your home without warning or warrant. Don't believe me? It was reported by the Seattle Times, hardly a conservative newspaper, and their informant was a liberal Democrat whose comment was that it's really hard to convince people that they aren't out to get people's guns when they do stupid stuff like this. When confronted about the bill, the sponsor claimed that a staffer had made a mistake, and withdrew the bill.

Something similar happened down south in Oregon. I mean who am I supposed to believe? The people who keep telling me that it will never happen? Or my eyes?

Quote:
But what about criminals, you say. Why must we do these things when criminals will break the law anyway? Well why make any law then? Criminals still cheat, steal, murder, rape, but we still have laws against those things. What is the point of having a government if it can't produce laws? Do we just throw our hands up in the air, and say "oh well, no one will listen anyway, so why bother...."

Of course not. That's why enforcement exists, and regulations exist, and punishments exist. This stuff's not difficult. It's first grade common sense.
Except murder, rape, stealing, ect are actual evil and therefor must be resisted by all good men, even if we are not fully effective. That why there are laws against them. Gun ownership is not inherently evil, you wish to restrict it because you claim that restricting guns will restrict other actions that are evil. So it's an indirect attempt to restrict evil, which means that the benefits must be weighed against the costs, and yes, effectiveness is an important part of that equation. If a law that restricts a neutral behavior is ineffective at restricting the evil that is targeted, then that means we just surrendered a bunch of freedom for no reason.
Quote:
You want less blue collar crime? Address the blue collar crime creator: poverty and sickness. You want less white collar crime? Address the white collar crime creator: the wedding of government to business. You want less crazy people "going postal" and shooting down some kids or blowing up some marathon runners? Stop supporting "leaders" who are more focused on keeping their job than doing their job.
??? Not only is that not pertinent, but it's factually incorrect. The largest "generator" of "blue-collar" crime are broken homes that don't have father raising his children. The second largest generator is drug use. In the past people used to be a lot poorer, and yet they committed less crime. Cross sectional analysis shows a correlation between crime and poverty, but time series do not. This suggests that reducing poverty will not improve the crime rate. More likely poverty is correlated with some other variable (like broken homes?) that causes crime. I haven't analyzed white collar crime, but Democrats are even worse then Republicans at keeping government and business separate (just look at who Obama keeps nominating for Cabinet positions). Not that Republicans are good, they just suck slightly less.

I have no idea how Senators voting against the gun control bill results in Chechnya terrorists blowing up the Boston Marathon, but I'd be interested in your theory.
Quote:
But for now, at least close the loopholes in existing law. It's the bare minimum, we should at least be able to do that, right? Nope. Because it somehow becomes this fear that the government is going to completely get rid of guns and your tin foil hats.
So why did the Democrats vote down the Republican version that would have extended background checks, but without the gun registry?


Quote:
Iceland lost 90% of its economy, let the banks fail, forgave most mortgage debt, upped government spending, and raised taxes. They're also recovering better than the US and the EU who have resorted to bank bailouts and austerity. Weird.
If you don't think Ireland has resorted to austerity, you need to go talk to an Irishman. Letting the banks fail was an act of austerity, so is raising taxes.

Quote:
You're right flying, that most Americans are far more concerned about jobs and the economy right now. But both parties are failing to do even that. It's stupid to have this divide between left and right, this disturbing glee when one side or the other fails to achieve anything, when ultimately it hurts all of us because they can't, or won't, do anything except continue this destructive status quo.
You need to go watch Attack of the Clones again. Padame explains all this. People don't agree on what should be done. They don't agree on what will help or hurt the country. Of course Republicans are going to oppose Democrats if they think the Democrat policy will hurt the country. Vice versa too.

The cause of deadlock is the moderates. They don't want to make a choice. They want the leaders to make the decision for them, but right now the leaders are divided and disagree about what is right for the country. Instead of supporting one side or the other, moderates are wishy washy, and go back and forth, and so nothing gets done.
__________________

Cross Game - A Story of Love, Life, Death - and Baseball. What more could you want?
Sackett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-20, 16:14   Link #763
Ithekro
Warning
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
Watching the recent movie "Lincoln" puts an interesting spotlight on US politics. Specifically the House of Representatives and the back and forth that can be needed between the various parties, wing of said parties, and the President.

The movie was more or less about the adoption of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution and the amount of just everything needed politcally to get it done before the end of that particular Congress and before the end of the Civil War. An effort made to make sure the Amendment would not only pass the House but also the States following the war.

The film is of course not entirely historically accurate, but the results are on record because that is what happens in the halls of Congress.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai! Signature by ganbaru
Rena's Saimoe Take Home List 2014: Dairenji Suzuka.Misawa Maho.
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-20, 16:35   Link #764
Kyuu
=^^=
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42 10' N (Latitude) 87 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 35
Let's bring up Guantanamo Bay:

Quote:
Sens. Graham, McCain say Tsarnaev should be sent to Guantanamo
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,2852243.story

Just an excuse to keep the place open.
Kyuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-20, 17:00   Link #765
Ithekro
Warning
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
They might one day close the detention parts, but there is no indication that anyone wants to shut down the base. At least not until relations with Cuba return to something resembling normal (which hasn't bee that way since before Castro in the 1950s).
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai! Signature by ganbaru
Rena's Saimoe Take Home List 2014: Dairenji Suzuka.Misawa Maho.
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-20, 18:28   Link #766
Sackett
Cross Game - I need more
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: I've moved around the American West. I've lived in Oregon, Washington, Utah, and Oklahoma
Age: 35
Tsarnaev is an American citizen committing violent acts here in America. He should be dealt with the court system. If it can be proven in court that he was acting on behalf of Al Qaeda (who we are still at war with since Congress never bothered to put a restraint on it's authorization of force), then he should be treated as an enemy combatant- specifically a spy, and subject to execution.

I'm not opposed to Guantanamo, or treating those captured on the battlefield as unlawful enemy combatants, as that's obviously what they are. But those not caught on the battle field cannot be suddenly whisked off to be imprisoned without court involvement.
__________________

Cross Game - A Story of Love, Life, Death - and Baseball. What more could you want?
Sackett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-20, 18:34   Link #767
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sackett View Post
Why are they doing it right now in New York? They're going around confiscating people's guns because 10 years ago they took an anti-anxiety medicine. It was in the newspaper.
I remember when the case with James Holmes shooting up a theater in Colorado occurred, a bunch of people immediately brought out the pitchforks against the psychiatrist who saw him, claiming that she didn't do enough. It later turned out that she had done all of the proper reporting required of her, and that the police had arguably dropped the ball. So now you're upset because too much emphasis is being given to mental health?

Here's an interesting comparison for you. In the health field we're trained that if we see any hint of child abuse we are to detain the child, separate them from their parents, and get child services involved immediately, no questions asked. This has resulted in a situation where roughly every other report of child abuse has no real abuse taking place. Yet this is what we want - the law is set up such that a physician who doesn't report child abuse can get slammed with civil and criminal charges, yet they are shielded by law if they make a report that turns out to have no true abuse behind it. We would prefer to be overly cautious and to catch as many cases of child abuse as we can, because despite these efforts child abuse is still occurring in rather large numbers today.

That was child abuse. Now let's get back to guns and killing or seriously injuring people. You're telling me that you would prefer not to take the cautious approach, that we should allow deaths to occur and after the fact blame some aspect of the system for not stopping it? Or that we should just accept that the deaths will happen and can't be prevented?

I'm not going to say that I agree with the way that this guy's case was handled. It seems a bit overly sensitive, that taking anti-anxiety medications years ago should result in having all firearms taken until you're given another mental health exam. Yet this is a step in the right direction.

In the state of Pennsylvania, at least, physicians are mandated to report patients who are no longer fit to drive to the Department of Motor Vehicles, thus nullifying their licenses unless the patient re-tests and confirms that they are still fit to drive. It's obvious why this is done, isn't it? We're trying to remove the possibility of an accident from occurring, even though this is greatly restrictive and debilitating to a patient. Cars may not be in the Constitution, but we're talking about changing someone's life and taking away a lot of their freedom, their ability to live on their own. Would you seriously argue that guns should be handled differently?
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-20, 20:35   Link #768
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
you guys know where this is headed right?
kyp275 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-20, 20:42   Link #769
Xellos-_^
Married
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
you guys know where this is headed right?
Patriot Act Part 2.
__________________
Xellos-_^ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-20, 20:45   Link #770
Ithekro
Warning
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
Quote:
you guys know where this is headed right?
To Bellevue?
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai! Signature by ganbaru
Rena's Saimoe Take Home List 2014: Dairenji Suzuka.Misawa Maho.
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-20, 22:00   Link #771
Kyuu
=^^=
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42 10' N (Latitude) 87 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
you guys know where this is headed right?
American Fascism. And everything that I argue with goes against that.
Kyuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-20, 23:06   Link #772
Sackett
Cross Game - I need more
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: I've moved around the American West. I've lived in Oregon, Washington, Utah, and Oklahoma
Age: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
I remember when the case with James Holmes shooting up a theater in Colorado occurred, a bunch of people immediately brought out the pitchforks against the psychiatrist who saw him, claiming that she didn't do enough. It later turned out that she had done all of the proper reporting required of her, and that the police had arguably dropped the ball. So now you're upset because too much emphasis is being given to mental health?
No. I'm upset that instead of denying gun ownership to people that a psychiatrist has found to be a current danger to themselves or others, the police have decided that anyone who has ever taken anti-anxiety or anti-depression medication in their life also cannot own a gun. Some how I don't think that's what Americans meant when we wanted medical health issues addressed.

We want to stop crazies like James Holmes and Adam Lanza. Not the woman who once suffered from baby blues, or a man who became depressed because a child died.

Quote:
Here's an interesting comparison for you. In the health field we're trained that if we see any hint of child abuse we are to detain the child, separate them from their parents, and get child services involved immediately, no questions asked. This has resulted in a situation where roughly every other report of child abuse has no real abuse taking place. Yet this is what we want - the law is set up such that a physician who doesn't report child abuse can get slammed with civil and criminal charges, yet they are shielded by law if they make a report that turns out to have no true abuse behind it. We would prefer to be overly cautious and to catch as many cases of child abuse as we can, because despite these efforts child abuse is still occurring in rather large numbers today.
Oh that's great. Justify a tyrannical action by pointing to other tyrannical actions. The current attitude toward child abuse accusations is completely unconstitutional, violates the right to be innocent until proven guilty, deprives parents of their children without proof of wrongdoing, and horribly traumatizes children. All so you can feel good about yourselves for "preventing" child abuse, while you are actually engaging in it. Yes. Stealing children from their parents is child abuse.

You call that "abundance of caution", but your caution only runs one way. What about the caution of not stealing children from loving parents for no good reason? You self appointed crusaders for children act like no harm is done when you grab children and keep them away from their parents, all with no proof of any wrong doing and then demand the parents prove they aren't bad parents before you return their kids.

Our entire system of law is based on the idea that it is better to let the guilty go free then to wrongly punish the innocent, yet that is simply ignored in child abuse cases. Which is bad for both parents and children.

Quote:
That was child abuse. Now let's get back to guns and killing or seriously injuring people. You're telling me that you would prefer not to take the cautious approach, that we should allow deaths to occur and after the fact blame some aspect of the system for not stopping it? Or that we should just accept that the deaths will happen and can't be prevented?
Owning guns does not equal killing people. Why does caution only operate one way? Aren't we supposed to exercise caution in declaring people guilty, and depriving them of their rights? Aren't people entitled to due process?

Emotional appeals to justify real harm right now to innocents in order to protect against some greater future possible harm just doesn't pull much weight with me.

Being free is dangerous. I prefer freedom and danger to tyranny and safety.

Quote:
In the state of Pennsylvania, at least, physicians are mandated to report patients who are no longer fit to drive to the Department of Motor Vehicles, thus nullifying their licenses unless the patient re-tests and confirms that they are still fit to drive. It's obvious why this is done, isn't it? We're trying to remove the possibility of an accident from occurring, even though this is greatly restrictive and debilitating to a patient. Cars may not be in the Constitution, but we're talking about changing someone's life and taking away a lot of their freedom, their ability to live on their own. Would you seriously argue that guns should be handled differently?
If the police where taking someones guns because their psychiatrist reported them as imminently dangerous, then I wouldn't be upset. As long as there is some process by which that can be appealed. Police digging through everyone's past medication history and then deciding to go to a man's home and seize his guns is not acceptable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuu View Post
American Fascism. And everything that I argue with goes against that.
When I read crap like this article I have to agree with you that fascism (as a political theory) is a real threat.

EDIT: And yet another fine example of how students are encouraged to be politically active, but only for the right causes.
__________________

Cross Game - A Story of Love, Life, Death - and Baseball. What more could you want?

Last edited by Sackett; 2013-04-21 at 09:33.
Sackett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-21, 11:44   Link #773
Badkarma 1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
Is this some sort of surprise? The government doesn't have eyes everywhere (although in some cities it's trying). I'm not sure where your gun rant comes into play, though. Were the population heavily armed and looking to deliver justice itself there likely would have been a number of cases of innocent people firing on each other, somewhat similar to how the LAPD fired on some innocents in the Dorner case a few months back. People can make fun of police all they like, but if people trained with firearms and for confrontational situations react like that, how do you think the general population would fare?
Nice. All I'm sayin was I'd bet good money plenty of people dug out there bird guns and deer rifles and circled the wagons.
Your speech on vigilante justice is just a crock! That may have been the case back say 20-30 years ago, but not today. They did as directed and stayed indoors for the most part.
As for the "gun rant" nevermind it's over your head. You might figure it out after your first GSW at a trauma ward.
My point was, that despite these 2 terrorists and their bombings, there are those who are still clamorin for gun control and bannin of "assault weapons", most if who don't know what a real assault weapon is and have the I.Q. of a raindrop, and are just goin along with the crowd.
Badkarma 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-21, 11:54   Link #774
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sackett View Post
Oh that's great. Justify a tyrannical action by pointing to other tyrannical actions. The current attitude toward child abuse accusations is completely unconstitutional, violates the right to be innocent until proven guilty, deprives parents of their children without proof of wrongdoing, and horribly traumatizes children. All so you can feel good about yourselves for "preventing" child abuse, while you are actually engaging in it. Yes. Stealing children from their parents is child abuse.

You call that "abundance of caution", but your caution only runs one way. What about the caution of not stealing children from loving parents for no good reason? You self appointed crusaders for children act like no harm is done when you grab children and keep them away from their parents, all with no proof of any wrong doing and then demand the parents prove they aren't bad parents before you return their kids.
Do you understand why the system is set up that way? If there's someone who really isn't a child abuser and the injury that their child suffered really was a freak accident, or was brought about by someone besides the parents, then telling them that I'm obligated to have child welfare services involved will result in displeasure but likely compliance. They'll go through the investigation process, have their innocence proven, and it won't be a big deal. On the other hand, if they are abusing their child or children and I inform them of this fact, they are likely to run for it and/or carry out further abuse. I didn't design the system and I dislike the idea of having to do such a thing, but the abuse we're talking about isn't exactly yelling at children or giving them a spanking. Broken bones, intentional burns, sexually transmitted diseases - these are clear-cut cases of abuse. The question is not over whether the abuse occurred, but who perpetuated it, and if it wasn't the parents, why the parents didn't do more to shield against it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sackett View Post
Our entire system of law is based on the idea that it is better to let the guilty go free then to wrongly punish the innocent, yet that is simply ignored in child abuse cases. Which is bad for both parents and children.
"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't come into play in the health field. Consider disease outbreaks: we take quarantine precautions if there is even a suspicion that you're infected. It would be foolish not to. The only argument to make is whether you think that child abuse should be considered under the jurisdiction of health services or not. As of now it is considered a health issue and health professionals are expected to screen for and identify it. Everything that happens afterward - proving innocence or guilt - is handled by child welfare services and/or the police.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sackett View Post
Owning guns does not equal killing people. Why does caution only operate one way? Aren't we supposed to exercise caution in declaring people guilty, and depriving them of their rights? Aren't people entitled to due process?
Owning guns doesn't equate to killing people just as being licensed to drive and owning a car doesn't equate to running people over or having collisions. Are you against driver's licenses? We license people to ensure that they're fit to drive and that they understand the responsibilities and safety procedures associated with driving. It goes without saying that people can enter periods of their lives - whether due to mental deterioration or altered physical conditioning - where they are no longer fit to drive. As such the license is revoked. It all makes sense, doesn't it? Why are people so against the idea of treating firearms in a similar manner?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sackett View Post
Being free is dangerous. I prefer freedom and danger to tyranny and safety.
You're talking about this like it's an all-or-nothing deal, but it isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sackett View Post
If the police where taking someones guns because their psychiatrist reported them as imminently dangerous, then I wouldn't be upset. As long as there is some process by which that can be appealed. Police digging through everyone's past medication history and then deciding to go to a man's home and seize his guns is not acceptable.
I don't disagree that this particular scenario wasn't handled well. It's overly sensitive and not specific enough. However, it trended in the correct direction.
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-21, 21:26   Link #775
Kyuu
=^^=
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42 10' N (Latitude) 87 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 35
Some nice, good outside perspective here:

Quote:
Why does America lose its head over 'terror' but ignore its daily gun deaths?
Quote:
But Londoners, who endured IRA terror for years, might be forgiven for thinking that America over-reacted just a tad to the goings-on in Boston. They're right – and then some. What we saw was a collective freak-out like few that we've seen previously in the United States. It was yet another depressing reminder that more than 11 years after 9/11 Americans still allow themselves to be easily and willingly cowed by the "threat" of terrorism.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...law?CMP=twt_gu

I, along with many Americans, actually saw little to no problem about the lockdown of Boston. After all, I am an American (by legal status). However, this is a bit of a good read.

If TL;DR, here's my summary:

Because of 9/11, America has gone off its rocker.

Quote:
if you want to wreak havoc in the United States, intimidate its population and disrupt public order, here's your instruction booklet.
Yea, that's a fine note to future would-be school shooters. The act of shooting up schools is small, little boys play. Get some bombs, and be a real man! It all just goes to show how much 9/11 had ingrained itself into the American psyche.

I'd have to say. Culturally, America is numb when it comes to guns and gun incidents. It doesn't matter how many die. That's just the culture of it. That is attributed to the NRA lobby, the Wild West stories, movies, etc. Just yesterday, I was re-watching Terminator 2 on TV; and I was thinking: "Wow, look at all those guns; but in order to fight the threat in the movie, those kinds of guns are actually needed." That includes a gatling gun.

Even someone like me, who is clamoring for greater gun safety measures, cannot help but be induced into this gun culture. For many, guns are all simply fun and games, right? I haven't played an FPS seriously (against human opponents) in over 10 years; but I had plenty of fun doing it.

Last edited by Kyuu; 2013-04-21 at 21:42.
Kyuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-21, 21:57   Link #776
Badkarma 1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Simply put its people control right?
Lets take your drivers license for example: At say 16-17 you are required to take a Driver's Ed. course in high school, then you take the written test at the DMV, then a road test with a state certified instructor or whatever they call em these days. You either pass or fail, but can take the test again if necessary.
Here in Illinois you are required to take a Hunter's Safety course before you can get your first huntin license. In said course you will be tested on your knowledge of game animals, the seasons in which you can hunt them, magazine limitations (3 rounds in your shotgun) the limits on how many game animals you may take, and a general knowledge of firearms safety, plus firin said weapon or weapons on a range with police and conservation officers present.
Also we have the FOID card, Firearm Owner Identification card. It's mandatory in my state if you want to possess a firearm, ammunition, and buy said items. Every ten years, you reapply fit it and are submitted to a STATE background check by the ISP. Also every time you purchase a weapon you are checked again by the instant check system also run by the ISP.
Now with all that, why the hell do we need medical professionals asking questions about wether or not I own a weapon? What if the said doctor has a very anti-gun attitude? Or an agenda? Once again it's the same old thing of meddlein in somebody else's private life! Physicians may be required to report signs of abuse but only to the police, who will investigate it from there if they think its warranted!
I talked with enough local Sheriff deputies and city police officers who were on the DCFS and they have told me its s nightmare of a detail.
So why not let the states mandate a weapon education system, take care of the so called registration issue. It is rather Convenient that those in favor of more gun regulations, control, bans have forgotten that every time you purchase a weapon you MUST fill out a Federal Form 4473, that the dealer must keep for inspection by the local office of the BATFE upon their askin! I've seen em do audits on gunshops, and it weren't pretty!
But there are those who'd rather have the gov't take charge and make all the decesions for them, so they don't have to be troubled. The Utopian wet dream! Unfortunately we humans hate bein in a box or under a microscope. As the people in Colorado are now doin, fightin for their FREEDOM from tyrannical, over zealous laws that were brought about by those wishin to only placate a few, and appease the one!
Socialism is a disease, and it needs to be erradicated!
Badkarma 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-21, 22:18   Link #777
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badkarma 1 View Post
Now with all that, why the hell do we need medical professionals asking questions about wether or not I own a weapon? What if the said doctor has a very anti-gun attitude? Or an agenda? Once again it's the same old thing of meddlein in somebody else's private life!
There are two major reasons why physicians are encouraged to ask about firearms in the home.

The first is for reminders about safety. Does it seem like common sense to you that your firearm should be locked away safely, with the ammunition removed? Good. Sadly, as you've probably seen in the news at least twice over the past month, those bits of advice don't occur to everyone, and they can and do result in deaths. Those deaths are easily preventable, wouldn't you say? Your physician is also supposed to remind you to wear your seatbelt when you drive for a very similar reason.

The second reason can deal with assessing suicide risk. Firearms are the method of choice for many people, particularly men. Statistically speaking, many people who commit suicide visit their physician within a month of committing the act. This makes physicians an obvious prevention point for stopping suicide. Contrary to popular belief, people who are suicidal are unlikely to keep trying to kill themselves if their primary method is removed, and the suicidal impulse is often temporary. Once again, we are talking about preventable deaths.

What if your doctor has an anti-gun agenda? What are you worried about? It's a lot of money and effort to become a doctor, and it's all too easy to lose your medical license (read: your job forever) if you act improperly and patients win cases against you. If your doctor is given the responsibility of removing your firearms and they do so without any good reason you can be sure that they'll catch hell for it. Or do you think that there are no such things as doctors who hunt, or doctors who are members of the NRA? Doctors don't cover for each other blindly, and there are plenty of interests and motives within this professional circle.

As for "meddling in someone else's private life," I'd like to remind you that this is about making sure that you don't meddle in someone else's private life. Nobody cares if you go hunting or use your guns at a firing range. If you threaten someone else or use your firearm against someone innocent then we have a problem. This isn't about controlling you, it's about keeping you free but not allowing your freedoms to infringe on someone else's (and preventing others from infringing on your freedoms with theirs). As the saying goes, "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-21, 22:34   Link #778
Urzu 7
Juanita/Kiteless
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New England
Age: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sackett View Post
No. I'm upset that instead of denying gun ownership to people that a psychiatrist has found to be a current danger to themselves or others, the police have decided that anyone who has ever taken anti-anxiety or anti-depression medication in their life also cannot own a gun.
Wait, you make it sound like this happened somewhere. Did some state put on some very strict, illogical restrictions on gun ownership?
__________________
http://forums.animesuki.com/images/as.icon/signaturepics/sigpic38963_5.gif
Urzu 7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-21, 22:37   Link #779
Ithekro
Warning
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
The thing is, car registration and licensing is by state, not at the federal level. That might be the difference in how to do anything on guns. The US Constitution applies to what the Federal government can or cannot do. Everything else goes to the states.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai! Signature by ganbaru
Rena's Saimoe Take Home List 2014: Dairenji Suzuka.Misawa Maho.
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-21, 22:48   Link #780
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
This isn't about controlling you, it's about keeping you free but not allowing your freedoms to infringe on someone else's (and preventing others from infringing on your freedoms with theirs). As the saying goes, "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
Actually it's not about control nor is it about keeping people free and protecting others' freedoms.

It's about getting elected and re-elected.

That's why the proposed "solutions" are brain-dead in the extreme. They're nothing but feel-good legislation, easy to promise, easy to pass, easy to throw away if they don't pass.

Our politicians are humoring us. They propose silly, unpopular, unworkable bills that do nothing and then sit on their hands and shrug, saying, "Hey, we tried!" when the bills are inevitably shot down.

Banning weapons that "look scary" doesn't do a thing. Banning magazines over 10-round barely affects anything except the reliability of weapons designed to use certain magazine sizes. Looking overly-broadly at peoples' medical history is just a privacy can o' worms waiting to explode.

You want to reduce gun violence in the US?

Reduce poverty.
__________________
synaesthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:28.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.