(06-23-2015 02:53 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:51 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:47 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 01:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 12:58 PM)dfarr Wrote:  My wife has a diagnosed mental illness. She has a history of anorexia/bullemia. Is she not allowed a gun?

Apparently not, all anybody ever needs is for somebody to diagnose them with a mental illness and BAM they can take away any right they choose.

Up next, anybody who was ever mentally unstable can't be trusted to vote.

The connection between the mentally ill and felons continues to strengthen in the eyes of some.

(06-23-2015 02:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:41 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  you said I am creating straw man arguments. That means I am arguing one side or another. I asked you about the mental issue part, you compared it to cancer victims, and I said that is absurd.

I haven't given an argument to one side or another. I've merely asked questions here. So what straw man arguments have I created, and what legal issues am I ignorant to?

Highlighted for simplicities sake

obviously sarcasm isn't a strong suit of yours.

And you are the one who linked limiting mentally ill people being restricted access to weapons and not allowing them to vote as the next step.

So in terms of the "straw man argument", would that make you the pot, or kettle?

IMO it's worth discussing. Both are Constitutional Rights and both can be dangerous.

we aren't talking about voting rights. we are talking about whether or not mentally ill people who are a danger to themselves or others, should have easy access to fully automatic weapons. throwing in voting to this is a straw man argument. If you want to talk about voting, take it to another thread.

Considering it's hard for folks who aren't mentally ill to have access to fully automatic weapons, I don't really see your point. You have to have a special permit to legally own fully automatic weapons (I believe).

(06-23-2015 03:42 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:53 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:51 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:47 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 01:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Apparently not, all anybody ever needs is for somebody to diagnose them with a mental illness and BAM they can take away any right they choose.

Up next, anybody who was ever mentally unstable can't be trusted to vote.

The connection between the mentally ill and felons continues to strengthen in the eyes of some.

(06-23-2015 02:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Highlighted for simplicities sake

obviously sarcasm isn't a strong suit of yours.

And you are the one who linked limiting mentally ill people being restricted access to weapons and not allowing them to vote as the next step.

So in terms of the "straw man argument", would that make you the pot, or kettle?

IMO it's worth discussing. Both are Constitutional Rights and both can be dangerous.

we aren't talking about voting rights. we are talking about whether or not mentally ill people who are a danger to themselves or others, should have easy access to fully automatic weapons. throwing in voting to this is a straw man argument. If you want to talk about voting, take it to another thread.

Considering it's hard for folks who aren't mentally ill to have access to fully automatic weapons, I don't really see your point. You have to have a special permit to legally own fully automatic weapons (I believe).

Correct

(06-23-2015 03:45 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 03:42 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:53 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:51 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:47 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  obviously sarcasm isn't a strong suit of yours.

And you are the one who linked limiting mentally ill people being restricted access to weapons and not allowing them to vote as the next step.

So in terms of the "straw man argument", would that make you the pot, or kettle?

IMO it's worth discussing. Both are Constitutional Rights and both can be dangerous.

we aren't talking about voting rights. we are talking about whether or not mentally ill people who are a danger to themselves or others, should have easy access to fully automatic weapons. throwing in voting to this is a straw man argument. If you want to talk about voting, take it to another thread.

Considering it's hard for folks who aren't mentally ill to have access to fully automatic weapons, I don't really see your point. You have to have a special permit to legally own fully automatic weapons (I believe).

Correct

HeartofDixie believes everyone should have access to fully automatic weapons.

(06-23-2015 03:27 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:03 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm really not interested in what other people do about guns.

It's a Constitutional right that you are allowed to have one and you should have no restrictions placed on you due to the actions of others. It's really just that simple.

If you want to fight gun crime then you fight crime, not guns.

+1.

One thing though, we pretty much all agree that there should be restrictions placed on your right to own firearms and weaponry. I haven't seen any studies asking this question, but I don't think anything but an extreme minority of US citizens would agree with the legal selling and buying of RPG's, or helicopter mounted mini-guns, or any thousands of other examples of weapons that we all agree shouldn't be sold at the local 7-11.

So, it's not an argument on an absolute constitutional right, it's an argument on the application and scope of the restrictions we all agree need to exist despite the 2nd amendment.

Wow, lots of AUP violations itt

(06-23-2015 03:08 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  I particularly enjoy comments like "I don't care if it worked somewhere else".

True. The proper response is instead, "But it didn't work somewhere else." Because it hasn't.

(06-23-2015 04:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 03:08 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  I particularly enjoy comments like "I don't care if it worked somewhere else".

True. The proper response is instead, "But it didn't work somewhere else." Because it hasn't.

I think either side is lying if they claim the other approach hasn't worked elsewhere, or that there isn't any evidence in support of either gun control or encouraging responsible gun ownership (like concealed carry). That's sort of the problem with this topic in general, and why I really do hate how polarizing it has become. There is probably a reasonable middle ground of gun control that 60-70% of americans would support, but it's never framed that way.

EDIT: As for the OP's video, I really did like it when he caught him with the 'so you're saying all drugs should be legal', and the response is like catching a computer in an infinite feedback loop.

(06-23-2015 03:49 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 03:45 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 03:42 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:53 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:51 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  IMO it's worth discussing. Both are Constitutional Rights and both can be dangerous.

we aren't talking about voting rights. we are talking about whether or not mentally ill people who are a danger to themselves or others, should have easy access to fully automatic weapons. throwing in voting to this is a straw man argument. If you want to talk about voting, take it to another thread.

Considering it's hard for folks who aren't mentally ill to have access to fully automatic weapons, I don't really see your point. You have to have a special permit to legally own fully automatic weapons (I believe).

Correct

HeartofDixie believes everyone should have access to fully automatic weapons.

Ha most Americans and posters in here don't know what an automatic weapon is. Most here believe a AR 15 is an " Automatic Weapon". And @ assault rifle to boot!

(06-23-2015 04:09 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I think either side is lying if they claim the other approach hasn't worked elsewhere

What proposed gun control legislation has worked, and where? I'm specifically talking about things like assault weapons bans, gun registration, storage requirements, and guilty until proved innocent gun responsibility. There is no place where any of those have had a material impact. Not Australia and not UK, for the record.

I agree on the middle ground. My middle ground would include a gun license that would include criminal background checks and safety training and a demonstration/performance test, similar to a driver's license; substantially enhanced penalties for gun crimes and violations; and some effort to address the suicide issue, which really drives our statistics more than most people realize (our gun suicides are way higher than elsewhere, oddly enough particularly among whites, but our total suicides are pretty much in line with other developed countries, lower than several with much more restrictive gun laws, so the problem is pretty clearly more one of suicide than of guns). Bottom line--If you stay out of gangs and don't commit suicide, your chances of getting killed by a gun are about the same here as in Western Europe. The problem areas are obvious, so deal with them instead of criminalizing otherwise legal behavior.

(06-23-2015 04:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 04:09 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I think either side is lying if they claim the other approach hasn't worked elsewhere

What proposed gun control legislation has worked, and where? I'm specifically talking about things like assault weapons bans, gun registration, storage requirements, and guilty until proved innocent gun responsibility. There is no place where any of those have had a material impact. Not Australia and not UK, for the record.

I'd point to the National Firearms Act of 1934, and the complete drop-off we saw from machine-gun violence afterwards. But I'd like for you to explain how it didn't work in Australia given the data?

Quote:I agree on the middle ground. My middle ground would include a gun license that would include criminal background checks and safety training and a demonstration/performance test, similar to a driver's license; substantially enhanced penalties for gun crimes and violations; and some effort to address the suicide issue, which really drives our statistics more than most people realize (our gun suicides are way higher than elsewhere, oddly enough particularly among whites, but our total suicides are pretty much in line with other developed countries, lower than several with much more restrictive gun laws). Bottom line--If you stay out of gangs and don't commit suicide, your chances of getting killed by a gun are about the same here as in Western Europe. The problem areas are obvious, so deal with them instead of criminalizing otherwise legal behavior.

I don't have a problem with this, though I think I would amend that the licensing procedure should be easier/more difficult based on the firearm classification. Someone wanting to buy a bolt action hunting rifle shouldn't have the same requirements as someone purchasing a handgun, much like a person driving a car has different requirements than someone driving a big rig.

The problem with the license to own a gun idea is that gun ownership is written into the constitution whereas being allowed to drive a car isn't. If there's a license to own a gun then the people who are anti-voter ID have no leg to stand on.

(06-23-2015 11:05 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:03 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm really not interested in what other people do about guns.

It's a Constitutional right that you are allowed to have one and you should have no restrictions placed on you due to the actions of others. It's really just that simple.

If you want to fight gun crime then you fight crime, not guns.

So you are willing to dismiss the success in Australia because of what someone wrote on a piece of paper over 200 years ago?

Yea, who cares about history, hunh fitty?

Clearly not your strong suit.

(06-23-2015 04:37 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I'd point to the National Firearms Act of 1934, and the complete drop-off we saw from machine-gun violence afterwards.

1934 also coincided with the end of Prohibition, and I think most would agree that had a much bigger impact on machine-gun deaths. Which reminds me, I would also favor legalization or decriminalization of at least some currently prohibited drugs as a way to break the power of gangs.

Quote:But I'd like for you to explain how it didn't work in Australia given the data?

Let's look at the actual data. Australian gun death rates were extremely low and falling rapidly in the 20 years prior to passage of their strict gun control law in 1997, and have continued to decline the same rate or slightly more slowly since then. A number of studies have concluded variously no effect, some effect, or a possible effect but not statistically significant. Experts in law enforcement and criminology have been all over the place as well. It is pretty clear from the mass of testimony and opinion that there have been significant advances in policing contemporaneously with the law changes, and those are clearly responsible for some of the impact. There are by the way more gun owners and more guns in Australia today than there were in 1997. It's really hard to quantify much of an effect using statistical methods, because the rates were so low before that it's hard to produce statistical significance. If you plot the 20 years before and the 18 years after on a graph, it's basically a straight line with a slight downward slope. That's not an indication of anything that worked.

This is the trend. Places like UK and Australia, which had very low rates before gun controls were enacted, have continued to have low rates. On the other hand, where rates were high before (like some Latin American countries) rates have remained high, or even gone higher, because gun controls are not observed by the criminals who drive the problem. We are not a place with low rates before.

Feel free to come up with an exception if you can. I don't think you can.

Agree on several levels of licensing, just like with drivers. Single-shot, multi-shot, semi-automatic, pistol, concealed carry, all make sense as possible categories with differing requirements. The opposition from gun advocates is that we would be creating some registry to support a witch hunt. But if you get a CCL (as many or most of them do) you're already there.

" Americans have the right and advantage of being armed- unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms".--James Madison

Deo Vindice