DescentBB

you clearly don't understand it, based on your comments I responded to.

Lothar wrote:I'm not dismissing reasonable background checks.

Good.

I'm suggesting that including mental health assessments in background checks

which can be done during the screening process by reading the applicant's file, like how a criminal check works.

requires more than just slapping a "mentally ill" flag onto the pre-existing system.

Obviously.

And that putting something like that in place in a haphazard, ill-thought-out way might actually cause deaths, and not actually prevent a lot of mass shootings.

Well let's make sure it's not haphazard.

Checks and balances. Systems in place to prevent abuse by vindictive mental health professionals.

Is there really a rash of vindictive professionals running amok? Is this really a reasonable concern, or an irrational fear?

Systems in place to allow people with non-dangerous mental illnesses to still protect themselves.

again, obviously.

Systems in place to ensure that we don't deny people a constitutional right unless a sensible, robust process has been followed. Not just "this person is mentally ill so we must disarm them" without any thought put in to how that could potentially be abused or simply result in the wrong people being denied.

you sound scared.

------------

(the proper usage of a firearm in this context is self defense or the defense of liberty)

Self-defense? from whom? enemy soldiers? Just where do you live that you have to be ready for an invasion? Face it, the guy who broke into your house just wants your television. Something that you can just let the guy have, then call the police and tell them you've been robbed, give them the serial and they have it back to you in less than a month. If that fails, just buy another television. Let the shithead have it, it's not irreplaceable.

What's cheaper, replacing your stuff, a hospital visit, or a funeral?

Oh and, thanks for completely ignoring United States v. Miller. Guess it wasn't in your best interest to see exactly how your second amendment works.

It’s not legal to use deadly force to protect property here in Philadelphia, self defense is a different subject. People don’t break into homes to steal when someone is home, they do that when the house is empty, so if someone breaks in when you are home, you better be prepared for the worse.

Ferno wrote:really? tell that to the guy who pulled a shotgun on me during a home invasion.

The miller case is what it is, but the court has made a much more recent and relevant ruling.

You don’t have to agree with the court, but you do have to respect the rulings, same with those who are against gay marriage…right?

Ferno wrote:

Checks and balances. Systems in place to prevent abuse by vindictive mental health professionals.

Is there really a rash of vindictive professionals running amok? Is this really a reasonable concern, or an irrational fear?

Do you play poker? One of the important factors in poker is understanding your odds in a hand -- and sometimes, a seemingly unlikely possibility makes the difference between "good odds" and "bad odds". Running straight and flush cards, for example, might turn a 4:1 draw into a 3:1 draw, and turn a fold into a call, or vice versa. You have to pay attention to that kind of stuff both for you and for what you think your opponent is on.

The point of the analogy is that you can't play up small effects in favor of your side, and then dismiss them on the other side. Small effects add up. There are some vindictive health professionals -- not a huge number, but some. There are health professionals who make mistakes (oh oops, I have two patients with the same name and logged the info in the wrong file.) Sometimes the initial diagnosis is wrong. And on and on and on and on.

"Scared" is the wrong word to describe my position. "Calculating" is more like it. I understand the way large-scale systems can naively appear to do one thing but actually do the opposite, as a result of small/overlooked effects. So I describe some of those small effects and challenge you to think them through. If you'd rather be dismissive, I guess you can, but that makes for boring conversation.

Ferno wrote:

Self-defense? from whom? enemy soldiers? Just where do you live that you have to be ready for an invasion? Face it, the guy who broke into your house just wants your television. Something that you can just let the guy have, then call the police and tell them you've been robbed, give them the serial and they have it back to you in less than a month. If that fails, just buy another television. Let the shithead have it, it's not irreplaceable.

What's cheaper, replacing your stuff, a hospital visit, or a funeral?

Your cheerios view of home invaders forgets about the women who are raped in their homes or the elderly who are beaten and robbed. I guess your view of being a superior sort of intellectual has clouded your ability to think. You don't know what the person intent is that breaks into your home, hence the reason for castle laws. You do know what castle laws are?

callmeslick wrote:
why would you need partisans, when you have a functional army? It takes a real lack of confidence in the largest, most expensive military in world history that you expect to be fighting off invaders with personal weaponry.

I guess you just don't follow the world news very well. Why should we have confidence in our military who cannot win against the Taliban ( who just took over Kunduz in Afghanistan and in trying to win back the city we wound up destroying the hospital causing Doctors without Boarders to pull out) or cannot defeat ISIS (thankfully Putin stepped up to the plate and is showing Obama how to do the job). Sorry slick but you cannot predict the scenario in which we will be invaded and whether we will be required to use our civilian arms to fend off the invaders.

woodchip wrote: I guess you just don't follow the world news very well. Why should we have confidence in our military who cannot win against the Taliban ( who just took over Kunduz in Afghanistan and in trying to win back the city we wound up destroying the hospital causing Doctors without Boarders to pull out) or cannot defeat ISIS (thankfully Putin stepped up to the plate and is showing Obama how to do the job). Sorry slick but you cannot predict the scenario in which we will be invaded and whether we will be required to use our civilian arms to fend off the invaders.

geez, I am SO glad I don't have to live with this worldview or life planning.

Lothar wrote:Do you play poker? One of the important factors in poker is understanding your odds in a hand -- and sometimes, a seemingly unlikely possibility makes the difference between "good odds" and "bad odds". Running straight and flush cards, for example, might turn a 4:1 draw into a 3:1 draw, and turn a fold into a call, or vice versa. You have to pay attention to that kind of stuff both for you and for what you think your opponent is on.

The point of the analogy is that you can't play up small effects in favor of your side, and then dismiss them on the other side. Small effects add up. There are some vindictive health professionals -- not a huge number, but some. There are health professionals who make mistakes (oh oops, I have two patients with the same name and logged the info in the wrong file.) Sometimes the initial diagnosis is wrong. And on and on and on and on.

"Scared" is the wrong word to describe my position. "Calculating" is more like it. I understand the way large-scale systems can naively appear to do one thing but actually do the opposite, as a result of small/overlooked effects. So I describe some of those small effects and challenge you to think them through. If you'd rather be dismissive, I guess you can, but that makes for boring conversation.

and that's enough to say "we don't need any kind of psychological screening"? Throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.

It's like telling people they shouldn't take the train because of a small chance that the train will derail. Or telling people they shouldn't go out in the rain because of a small chance of being struck by lightning. Or telling Orville and Wilbur they shouldn't have done what they did because of a small chance of a crash. If we all sat at home because of a small risk, or small odds against us, we wouldn't get anything done.

The odds of a person not getting a gun because of a small risk of a mistaken call should always outweigh a person obtaining a gun and the public going "those deaths could have been prevented" if he obeys the voices in his head.

---------

they do that when the house is empty, so if someone breaks in when you are home, you better be prepared for the worse.

"well, someone's just broken in. I'm pretty sure he's going to take my television, but I'm just going to get my gun, out of my safe, then the ammo out of a different safe.. and then i'm going to shoot him because I think he's a psychotic murderer too!" What kind of a world do you really live in, where you're ready to shoot someone as soon as they break in? The most likely place that someone would actually try to shoot you is in the street. I really do hate these bull★■◆● reasons. At no time do thieves go from "I'm going to rob this person" to "I get to murder someone now!" in a blink of an eye. Try again.

OOOOOKay

Ferno wrote:and that's enough to say "we don't need any kind of psychological screening"?

That's not the position I stated. Please reread my posts until you see the difference between "we don't need any kind of psychological screening" and what I actually said (hint: "checks and balances".)

Ferno wrote:

"well, someone's just broken in. I'm pretty sure he's going to take my television, but I'm just going to get my gun, out of my safe, then the ammo out of a different safe.. and then i'm going to shoot him because I think he's a psychotic murderer too!" What kind of a world do you really live in, where you're ready to shoot someone as soon as they break in? The most likely place that someone would actually try to shoot you is in the street. I really do hate these bull★■◆● reasons. At no time do thieves go from "I'm going to rob this person" to "I get to murder someone now!" in a blink of an eye. Try again.

This is so wrong on so many levels I actually feel sorry for you Fernman. First off, why are you pretty sure he broke into your house to steal your tv set? You a mind reader? Do you know he is not high on salts and is looking to chew your face off? Why in Gods name would you assume anything about someone breaking into your house while you are in the house?

Second thing is why would you have your home defense weapon locked up in one safe and your ammo in another? Canadian law says you can store your ammo in the same locked container as the firearm. A finger print activated safe would open pretty quick and you can access the firearm fairly quick. Canadian law also states a locked room to store your firearm in is also acceptable (read up on safe rooms: http://www.nrafamily.org/articles/2014/ ... rotection/)

Third, at least here in the states, it is not murder to shoot someone who has broken into your home. Since the law does not recognize mind reading as a inherent part of human beings, the law assumes the home invader to be dangerous and their intent unknown. Thus we have the right to shoot them. Having said that we don't HAVE to shoot them, instead we can order them to stop and put their arms up and then call the police. If they do not stop and keep coming toward you then it is time to shoot. If they turn around and flee the house, do not shoot and let them go. So you see Ferny, you do have options.

callmeslick wrote:further matters around open carry, concealed carry issues:
http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-n ... 5284-story

here is example B of why folks like me are REAL uneasy with extending public carry. I don't care if there is only one person in 10 or even 20 who is possessed of this poor judgement, that is too much to expand such privilege to anyone, frankly. Forgawdsakes, this is about SHOPLIFTING. Since when does that require gunplay, for any freaking reason? Just like the example I put out at the start of the thread, unless you can ABSOLUTELY weed out the vast majority of trigger happy Heros, I want no part of public carry, concealed or open.

So once again you are the scouring the news reports for isolated instances where someone used poor judgement, overlooking the millions upon millions of cpl holders that don't do stupid things. So you cite 2 cases of wannabe "Heros" and you turn that into a "vast" majority. Slick, statements like you just made is why people like you should stay away from writing laws.

where the heck was the 'good toddler with a gun'?
http://www.wbtv.com/story/30239803/todd ... er-in-back

the outliers to the ranks of 'responsible gun owners' make up a really large group.........yeesh.

callmeslick wrote:...toddler with a gun...

Ugh, how horrible. That child will probably be taken away from it's family. There is so much lifelong pain and sadness that will accompany the family because of this incident.

Ferno wrote:Food is a right. Shelter is a right. Good health is a right. Having the ability to defend yourself is a right. Not being persecuted for whatever reason is a right. Unless your firearm is considered 'military-type' and you're part of a militia, then it's a privilege to own it.

Does it say "keep and bear any type of guns" anywhere? No. it says "keep and bear arms". In United States v. Miller, Justice McReynolds stated that if it's not "part of the ordinary military equipment" or "that its use could contribute to the common defense", then it's not unconstitutional. Being told you can't buy a shotgun because you didn't pass the background check doesn't qualify as infringement. The miller test sees to that.

Maybe so... I also know a lot of people take issue with that interpretation of the second amendment...

Ferno wrote:You don't understand. The medicals are also aimed at making sure one doesn't have the inclination to use the objects as weapons. Or having the inclination to commit suicide-by-pilot (which has happened!)

Except... FAA medicals don't include any psychological evaluation. People don't to undergo a psychological evaluations to get their drivers license... so the medicals don't include these evaluations that you claim they do.

Here's the root of the issue that I have with your line of thinking: (The Editorial that Lothar linked to touched on this) I've seen some of the spectrum of "crazy" and the state's involvement therein through the foster care system. The people who are just way out there get identified early (or self-identify early) and they get help. The really bad cases are the ones who are sane enough to hide it and also enabled by the people around them. The really really bad cases are the psychotic people who are fully in control and do evil things in a planned and careful way. Superficial psychological evaluations probably won't catch the mass shooters... because most of them are in that last category. What will make a difference is people getting involved and caring for the people around us.

vision wrote:

callmeslick wrote:...toddler with a gun...

Ugh, how horrible. That child will probably be taken away from it's family. There is so much lifelong pain and sadness that will accompany the family because of this incident.

how freaking stupid and irresponsible does one have to be to have a gun available to a toddler so that it could be fired? Actually, assuming grandma lives, she's likely looking at reckless endangerment. child welfare and firearms charges. The kid will be placed based on the REST of the family, but, yes, a lot of pain, sadness and family animosity might result from this.

Lothar wrote:

Ferno wrote:and that's enough to say "we don't need any kind of psychological screening"?

That's not the position I stated. Please reread my posts until you see the difference between "we don't need any kind of psychological screening" and what I actually said (hint: "checks and balances".)

well that's certainly how it came off as. Like you said before, you have no problem with mental health. But! When it comes to background checks, you seem to be excessively worried about a vindictive party affecting everyone who wants to obtain a license. It's like you have some sort of deep-seated and irrational paranoia about one small party affecting a large group, but have trouble realizing it. And then to play it off as 'calculating'...


I've known you for years. and I know when you're talking rubbish.

Snoopy wrote:FAA medicals don't include any psychological evaluation

That's not their job. But they're taking steps to make it their job.

Commercial pilots must see an FAA-approved doctor every six to 12 months to maintain their license.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/F ... 75041.html

callmeslick wrote:where the heck was the 'good toddler with a gun'?
http://www.wbtv.com/story/30239803/todd ... er-in-back

the outliers to the ranks of 'responsible gun owners' make up a really large group.........yeesh.

And how large is that group? Still scouring I see

when one can find EASILY LOCATED examples, daily, it must be pretty damned large, Woody. You use the word 'scour' like I actually search for these stories I link. Sad to say, I only link things that are in my local paper's national news section or Reuters headline items. God knows how much I could dump onto your lap if I had the time or inclination to 'scour' for examples.

And yet you seem to not be able to find where people with guns do good:

Elderly husband saves wife from armed robber, The Indianapolis Star, Indianapolis, Ind. 09/22/15
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015092 ... ind-092215

Bank robber foiled by Right-to-Carry permit holder, The Detroit Free Press, Detroit, Mich. 09/21/15
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015092 ... ich-092115

Teen uses father's rifle to protect siblings from home invaders, KSNV, Las Vegas, Nev. 08/21/15
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015082 ... nev-082115

There are far more instances where lives are saved than those one ups you seem to find. Go ahead and keep posting more stories and I'll match you 2 for 1

Young child falls out of 3rd floor unguarded window and dies.

Silence…

Two doors down young child finds gun and shoots self.

15 news vans arrive…

Obama gives speech…



………………..

NEWSFLASH…This Just In…

Young child that fell out of window not really dead, because concrete is not designed to kill.

woodchip wrote:And yet you seem to not be able to find where people with guns do good:

Elderly husband saves wife from armed robber, The Indianapolis Star, Indianapolis, Ind. 09/22/15
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015092 ... ind-092215

Bank robber foiled by Right-to-Carry permit holder, The Detroit Free Press, Detroit, Mich. 09/21/15
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015092 ... ich-092115

Teen uses father's rifle to protect siblings from home invaders, KSNV, Las Vegas, Nev. 08/21/15
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015082 ... nev-082115

There are far more instances where lives are saved than those one ups you seem to find. Go ahead and keep posting more stories and I'll match you 2 for 1

no, there are not. The sheer statistics don't back it up. I haven't the time to do anything past the EXTREMELY superficial links I've posted. I would literally be posting at least 7 or 8 fresh stories, daily, of irresponsible, hotheaded, stupid behavior by gun owners if I did have that kind of time. So, please save the bluster.

Spidey wrote:Young child falls out of 3rd floor unguarded window and dies.

Silence…

Two doors down young child finds gun and shoots self.

15 news vans arrive…

Obama gives speech…



………………..

NEWSFLASH…This Just In…

Young child that fell out of window not really dead, because concrete is not designed to kill.

wow, it must be amazing to watch you bury your head in the sand, because you have ZERO contact with reality based upon the above.

another example:
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/texas-m ... -intruder/

another 'good guy with a gun'.....keeping our streets safe

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/angry-d ... -too-slow/d

I think Woody may not wish to really play this game.

I think you're both wasting everyone's time playing this game.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:
why would you need partisans, when you have a functional army? It takes a real lack of confidence in the largest, most expensive military in world history that you expect to be fighting off invaders with personal weaponry.

I guess you just don't follow the world news very well. Why should we have confidence in our military who cannot win against the Taliban ( who just took over Kunduz in Afghanistan and in trying to win back the city we wound up destroying the hospital causing Doctors without Boarders to pull out) or cannot defeat ISIS (thankfully Putin stepped up to the plate and is showing Obama how to do the job). Sorry slick but you cannot predict the scenario in which we will be invaded and whether we will be required to use our civilian arms to fend off the invaders.

THIS ballsy woman took things into her own hands. She woke up to a midnight home intruder and since she couldn't get to her gun once she confronted him, she punched the guy until she could grab the closest thing, her sword. She kept the intruder, who was high on drugs, pinned down until the cops showed up. Go girl!

http://www.wthr.com/story/30234927/east ... ther-women

But slick's story does have a point. Since this country is so flush with guns, don't get into a fight with any other random driver. You don't know if they have a gun and are willing to use it against someone in the heat of rage. In my home however, if someone breaks in while I'm home, they are going to have to contend with a gun, or even a (edit - 1831 French short sword), which I do own one of, pointed at them.

Lothar wrote:I think you're both wasting everyone's time playing this game.

I agree and said so at the outset....Woody seemed to differ.

callmeslick wrote:

Lothar wrote:I think you're both wasting everyone's time playing this game.

I agree and said so at the outset....Woody seemed to differ.

I generally try not to listen to woody for advice on how to conduct myself on forums

We all know exactly how this sort of exchange will go. You can both keep coming up with stories until everyone else is bored to tears, and you'll both leave thinking you "won". The rest of us will be either reaching for that Special Olympics meme, or waiting for someone else to do it so we can criticize them for being bigoted against those with special needs

Lothar wrote:I generally try not to listen to woody for advice on how to conduct myself on forums

fair enough. My bad. You do, thanks to me, have a 'beating a dead horse' emoticon at your grasp.

To show I have better restraint than slick I'm going to change tack and present this. Mi legislature is looking at closing a part of the state gun law which permits open carry of firearms on school properties. Now before some of you get all excited and say ,"Good!", there is a trade off. Those people with CPL's will then be allowed to carry their firearm on school property. In fact there will be no such thing as a gun free zone if you have a CPL. So at least now lawmakers have realized gun free is not free.

I wonder what repercussions this jury decision will have on gun stores nationwide?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-shop-fo ... -officers/

None as the store has a long history of sales violations. They deserve the book being thrown at them

woodchip wrote:None as the store has a long history of sales violations. They deserve the book being thrown at them

agree with Woody here. In fact, this is a clear example of how aggregious the violations have to be, and how bad the consequences have to be before legal action is taken.

callmeslickster wrote:In fact, this is a clear example of how aggregious the violations have to be, and how bad the consequences have to be before legal action is taken.

If this is an example, then I challenge you to show that it's more than a 1-off. And that's assuming the court is going to come out on the side of the reporting here, and decide that this business purposely and continually made shady deals part of their bottom line.

Thorne, I didn't bring the case up, but your words confirm my view.

here's someone who did some digging. I suppose Woody can produce counterpoints around how many toddlers prevent shootings or other crimes....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk ... 4909214946

woodchip wrote:And yet you seem to not be able to find where people with guns do good:

Elderly husband saves wife from armed robber, The Indianapolis Star, Indianapolis, Ind. 09/22/15
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015092 ... ind-092215

Bank robber foiled by Right-to-Carry permit holder, The Detroit Free Press, Detroit, Mich. 09/21/15
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015092 ... ich-092115

Teen uses father's rifle to protect siblings from home invaders, KSNV, Las Vegas, Nev. 08/21/15
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015082 ... nev-082115

There are far more instances where lives are saved than those one ups you seem to find. Go ahead and keep posting more stories and I'll match you 2 for 1

all of these stories have a common theme. The aggressors were there to take property that can be recovered.

--------------

Those people with CPL's will then be allowed to carry their firearm on school property

Oh goodie. Now we can look forward to seeing a crossfire during the next school shooting.

callmeslick wrote:here's someone who did some digging. I suppose Woody can produce counterpoints around how many toddlers prevent shootings or other crimes....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk ... 4909214946

Still digging for those one up stories I see.