monkeygirl Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 The objective, logical thinking is that a world without guns is safer. However, America will not and cannot just get rid of all of the guns. It is much easier to legislate an item (guns) than people (mentally unsound). While the crazies would still find ways to hurt people (bombs, knives, poison, etc.), I would think the overall violence rate would decrease. Statistically, I imagine I am more likely to get killed by a drunk driver than gun, so its kind of strange how we accept that hazard.I want to know why we can't legislate crazy? If you are mentally unsound, you shouldn't be harmed or abused, but you should not have the same rights and privileges as normal people, either -- including things like having a gun on your person, driving a car, etc... Just because there have been abuses of mentally ill people in the past is no excuse not to tightly monitor and/or institutionalize people who need it today. Who decides what "mentally unsound" means? In theory I"m okay with this restriction. In reality, I envision women with histories or garden-variety getting denied a permit and getting killed by abusive estranged husbands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pong Messiah Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Who decides what "mentally unsound" means? In theory I"m okay with this restriction. In reality, I envision women with histories or garden-variety getting denied a permit and getting killed by abusive estranged husbands.Would like to go into this in its own thread. Who decides what "mentally unsound" means is a very important question. Part of the reason people are so reluctant to go there is due to a (not unfounded) fear that it can be used as a tool for oppression. "You are protesting because you don't believe the state has your best interests at heart? Brother, that sounds... crazy!" (person is institutionalized for 25 years)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolence Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Kurgan, you are failing to see the obvious solution to this 2nd Amendment problem. When the originalist, plain-text reading of the Amendment lends it a sort of anachronistic tone, we need to bring it up to speed. This to me doesn't mean RESTRICTING gun rights. It means EXPANDING them. Mandatory nuclear warhead in every backyard type of stuff. Neighborhood tank patrols. Keep the government in check via fear of its armed-to-the-teeth citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burt Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 quote name="Pong Messiah" post="2150734" timestamp="1401658334"] Who decides what "mentally unsound" means? In theory I"m okay with this restriction. In reality, I envision women with histories or garden-variety getting denied a permit and getting killed by abusive estranged husbands.Would like to go into this in its own thread. Who decides what "mentally unsound" means is a very important question. Part of the reason people are so reluctant to go there is due to a (not unfounded) fear that it can be used as a tool for oppression. "You are protesting because you don't believe the state has your best interests at heart? Brother, that sounds... crazy!" (person is institutionalized for 25 years)... I can't imagine how one would begin to go about creating a standardized approach to assessing mental illness to a large population. Ot takes multiple tests to tease out learning disabilities, it would be a massive time and money drain to apply that to gun-buyers. I know a guy with PTSD walking around with a conceal carry, and he has said some truly frightening things. No one knows. I told an immediate relative of his, but this guy slipped through every crack quite easily. Psychopaths are very charismatic and convincing, so I wonder how anyone can see through that at a glance. The recent Cali shooter had cops at his doorstep, but he convinced them he was okay. I'm not saying its impossible, just that seems to be easier to regulate items than people because the subjective, human element is removed. Mental illnesses still carry a stigma, but can you imagine losing your rights over something like a stressful divorce, trouble at work, etc. I have had anxiety issues related to stress at work lately. The constant snake encounters puts me on edge, and sometimes when I am falling asleep I just get a tight chest and become very agitated. I would like to get help for it, but I am afraid of the consequences of being prescribed stress medication. So, a lot of these fears are already present in people. For me, the only thing in danger is my sleep schedule, small peanuts, but one has to figure there are people out there with truly concerning problems that are dissuaded from getting help. My PTSD friend wouldn't talk to the VA psych because he didn't want a mark on his record. edit: typed on phone, apologies for grammatical/spelling nightmare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitth'raw'nuroudo Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 I think there needs to be SOME more restrictions, but mostly I think we'd be fine just enforcing those we've already established. I hope it never comes to it, but the right to arm oneself is explicitly stated, in the constitution and in the Declaration of Independence, to be for the purpose of ousting tyrants from our government should they decide to declare war on The People. Yeah yeah, F16s and missiles, but if it comes to revolution it will be an armed resistance, not a war as we traditionally think of it. I also think we'd have a lot more success in reducing gun violence if we beefed up our medical and education system so that the average dolt is better equipped to understand what's going on inside their own head, as opposed to trying to disarm any and every potential terrorist, mostly because ANYONE could go crazy. We make laws based on facts, not conjecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts