School shooting: but don't mention guns!

[Sabretooth]

Calling people who disagree with you ignorant hardly adds to debate. It's just a shabby ad hom.

People can disagree with me all they like, but I do require factual and rational ideas during discussions. However, ignoring facts and arguing with nothing but emotion is rather ignorant.

I would expect any one of you to point out my ignorance if I reacted the same.

 

[DavidJames]

People can disagree with me all they like, but I do require factual and rational ideas during discussions. However, ignoring facts and arguing with nothing but emotion is rather ignorant.

I would expect any one of you to point out my ignorance if I reacted the same.

I pointed out your fallacies and was called ignorant. You are welcome to continue, I'll lump you in with those that proudly, despite the Newtown tragedy, have tools of death as their avatars and not respond to you.

 

[Sabretooth]

I pointed out your fallacies and was called ignorant. You are welcome to continue, I'll lump you in with those that proudly, despite the Newtown tragedy, have tools of death as their avatars and not respond to you.

Re-read my response to you. I did not call you ignorant. I was referring to others within the thread.

Since you brought it up again, where do I bring up fallacies? What I posted was true and they are legitimate comparisons based on what the poster what suggesting.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Exactly! That's a perfect way to describe my ideas of "gun control".

I think we're finding common ground now. Too bad the NRA won't let any of this happen.

 

[Sabretooth]

I think we're finding common ground now. Too bad the NRA won't let any of this happen.

I dunno about that. The NRA has no love of violent crime or allowing illegal firearms.

There is no fight from the NRA about having to register a firearm. It makes sense, really, to have a registration of all firearms.

But let's be reasonable with that. That database should not, for any reason, be accessible by anyone other than police or FBI. What happened with the idiots at the NY Journal was downright stupid.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The NRA has been against most, if not all, firearm legislation. They are just a lobby for gun manufacturers and could care less about the safety of people. They are like the cigarette lobbies of the 70's.

 

[Kestrel]

There is no fight from the NRA about having to register a firearm. It makes sense, really, to have a registration of all firearms.

We don't actually have registration of all firearms. Each individual dealer is required to keep registration records for firearms sold at the dealers shop. Firearms sold via private sales are not registered except when required by state law. And to further keep it from being a usable system, the government is prohibited from putting these records in a computer database.

We can thank the NRA lobbyists for inserting the private sale exemption and computer prohibition into the law. What it really does is make life safe for people diverting weapons to prohibited persons. Weapons purchased in a cash deal with private parties don't leave a paper trail linking the buyer to the firearm.

 

[Nessie]

The NRA are against a gun register

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/stop-obamaholder-gun-registration-scheme-now

and for a mental health register

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/nra-takes-fire-stance-mental-illness/story?id=18057336#.UN2FNnfDWSo

How about a compromise and a register of both?

 

[jimbob]

ETA: Moving further along the thread, it appears there may be a cultural reason for folks from the UK being unable to discuss the issue with any honesty.

Sorry?

None of the UK posters have been dishonest in this thread.

As far as the discussion about the NRA and gun control, the worship of the second amendment means that a lot of the US pro-gun posters seem to be unable to see that being in favour of the status quo, the NRA *is* in effect anti gun control, as well as having previously successfully lobbied to neuter several current gun-control legislation, and indeed to prevent the federal organisation tasked with researching morbidity and mortality from actually researching gun injuries and killings.

 

[000063]

I agree that they should be regulated. I support people's right to own them, but as a member of society I want that controlled. We do the same thing for cars.

And alcohol. And people consuming alcohol and operating cars.

Sure, you can continue with your two wrongs make a right and perfect solution fallacies until you tire. Thinking people will just ignore them.

How is it a "perfect solution fallacy" or "two wrongs make a right" to say that things can be regulated (and are) yet people still can use them to do bad things, then provide examples?

Calling people who disagree with you ignorant hardly adds to debate. It's just a shabby ad hom.

Cough.

The NRA are against a gun register

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/stop-obamaholder-gun-registration-scheme-now

and for a mental health register

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/nra-takes-fire-stance-mental-illness/story?id=18057336#.UN2FNnfDWSo

How about a compromise and a register of both?

APA's CEO Dr. James H. Scully added that LaPierre's remarks serve to perpetuate the idea that mental illness and evil are one and the same.

"This is simply a relic of the past and has no place in our public dialogue. People who are clearly not mentally ill commit violent crimes and perform terrible acts every day. Unfortunately, Mr. LaPierre's statements serve only to increase the stigma around mental illness and further the misconception that those with mental disorders are likely to be dangerous," Scully said.​

I don't think you quite understand what a "compromise" is. If I don't want a salad for my lunch, but I do want a cheeseburger, it's not a "compromise" to get both the salad and the cheeseburger.

Also, a mental health register seems like a rather intrusive measure to me, and I suspect it's unconstitutional in some way. It also brings up the question of who will have access to it; just gun sellers? How about employers? How about potential employers? There's already controversy about some employers' mandatory drug tests, much less having access to employee medical records. And given that the vast majority of mentally ill people don't commit wholesale murder, I doubt it'd be effective at preventing gun crimes.

 

[Sabretooth]

The NRA are against a gun register

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/stop-obamaholder-gun-registration-scheme-now

and for a mental health register

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/nra-takes-fire-stance-mental-illness/story?id=18057336#.UN2FNnfDWSo

How about a compromise and a register of both?

I, personally, do not have an issue with either.

 

[Sabretooth]

Also, a mental health register seems like a rather intrusive measure to me, and I suspect it's unconstitutional in some way. It also brings up the question of who will have access to it; just gun sellers? How about employers? How about potential employers?

My idea for this "register" would to only access to FBI and State Police level. That means no access for county/city/village police forces...or anyone else, for that matter.

Gun sales are called into FBI offices. No reason for denial has to be given to the seller to pass along to the potential buyer. Seller simply states that the sale has been declined and you must contact this number, or visit this office, etc.

Now, as far as who reports individuals to this "register", I dunno. I haven't really given it too much thought beyond how it would be maintained and who has access.

 

[Nessie]

Edited by Gaspode: 

Removed breach of rule 12

 

[Nessie]

.....

APA's CEO Dr. James H. Scully added that LaPierre's remarks serve to perpetuate the idea that mental illness and evil are one and the same.

"This is simply a relic of the past and has no place in our public dialogue. People who are clearly not mentally ill commit violent crimes and perform terrible acts every day. Unfortunately, Mr. LaPierre's statements serve only to increase the stigma around mental illness and further the misconception that those with mental disorders are likely to be dangerous," Scully said.[/INDENT]

I don't think you quite understand what a "compromise" is. If I don't want a salad for my lunch, but I do want a cheeseburger, it's not a "compromise" to get both the salad and the cheeseburger.

Also, a mental health register seems like a rather intrusive measure to me, and I suspect it's unconstitutional in some way. It also brings up the question of who will have access to it; just gun sellers? How about employers? How about potential employers? There's already controversy about some employers' mandatory drug tests, much less having access to employee medical records. And given that the vast majority of mentally ill people don't commit wholesale murder, I doubt it'd be effective at preventing gun crimes.

I know fine what a compromise is, I should have added a smiley to show I do not think that either register will ever happen as both sides have strong opponents to such.

I just think the NRA are mad to say have a register for mental health, but not guns. Guns are easy to register. Make, model, serial number and who has it, if known. A mental health register is far harder to set up and maintain. First, what counts to go on the register as basic depression affects so many people at times and can come and go. So people will be on and off just for depression.

 

[Nessie]

My idea for this "register" would to only access to FBI and State Police level. That means no access for county/city/village police forces...or anyone else, for that matter.

Gun sales are called into FBI offices. No reason for denial has to be given to the seller to pass along to the potential buyer. Seller simply states that the sale has been declined and you must contact this number, or visit this office, etc.

Now, as far as who reports individuals to this "register", I dunno. I haven't really given it too much thought beyond how it would be maintained and who has access.

The UKs register is maintained by the police as they deal with licensing and stolen guns etc and it is kept on the Police National Computer, the same system that records criminal records, vehicle details and missing persons.

The PNC only records people who have guns, there is then a separate system with records the gun and you can find out from its serial number who has it.

 

[zeggman]

I agree that they should be regulated. I support people's right to own them, but as a member of society I want that controlled. We do the same thing for cars.

In the United States, we don't control who can own a car, only who can drive one in public and the rules of the road. The equivalent regulation would seem to be a concealed carry license or a hunting license.

 

[jimbob]

In the United States, we don't control who can own a car, only who can drive one in public and the rules of the road. The equivalent regulation would seem to be a concealed carry license or a hunting license.

But I bet there are controls on who can own precursor chemicals to certain banned substances.

Handguns are easier to hide than cars and are more suited to killing.

 

[Belz...]

In the United States, we don't control who can own a car, only who can drive one in public and the rules of the road. The equivalent regulation would seem to be a concealed carry license or a hunting license.

It's a bit harder to conceal a car on a public road, though.

 

[rwguinn]

It's a bit harder to conceal a car on a public road, though.

Apparently not. Half the drivers here seem to find my silver F-150 invisible, considering the way they drive...

 

[Information Analyst]

But I bet there are controls on who can own precursor chemicals to certain banned substances.

Heh! Ain't that the truth! It's odd that the United States doesn't have a problem with blanket and retorspective bans on some things, but seems obsessed with applying grandfather rights to others to keep them in circulation.