DescentBB

Top Gun wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:What I'd like to know is why the shooter, who was supposedly having mental issues which his mother knew about, owned 13 or 14 guns in the first place?

I just want to know why the hell anyone feels the need to own 14 separate guns. Like, unless they're non-functioning historical pieces, what sort of fucked-up mental processes are at work there? Do we really want to live in a society where people can accrue personal goddamn armories?

Since you are not a gun owner let me break it down for you:

I have a 12g pump that I bought when I was about 17. Used it for bird hunting and deer hunting. Never sold it as I saw no reason to.

I have a 12g double barrel that I bought to hunt birds out of country as it has a threaded barrel I can put in different size chokes. Used it also to shoot sporting clays.

I have a 22 rifle I got as a kid that I used to hunt squirrels. Never saw a need to sell it.

I have a 22 mag rifle that I got a few years ago. Also used to hunt squirrels

I have pistol I bought 35 years ago. Never saw a need to sell and it is a collectors piece now.

I have a 45 semi auto pistol that that I bought 15 years ago for ccw and used it on a pistol league.

I just bought a newer 9mm as it weighs half of what the 45 does. Just got to be too damn heavy to carry the 45.

I got a ar15 to use in target shooting and competition.

I have a black powder rifle I use to hunt deer.

So that is 9 firearms

So am I fucked up because I have nine firearms. Or do you start to see how a person can accumulate a "★■◆●ing Arsenal"?

Ferno wrote:

Lothar wrote:The issue isn't that we can't recognize problems. It's that as soon as you let people judge others' worthiness, you introduce the possibility not just of outright bigotry, but of implicit systemic bias.

/faceplam
we're talking about mental health professionals, doctors, specialists, giving the diagnoses. not a questionnaire that a merchant or government official hands out.

I can tell from experience from going to 2 different cardiologists and getting 2 totally different ekg results. Think your health pros won't all come to the same conclusion if they looked at the same person? Think some of them won't look at a person differently when they know he is applying to buy a firearm?

Lothar wrote:And there have never been bigots in any of those professions.

wait a minute.....your whole defense to your rationale boils down to some kind of paranoia about health professionals? Hell, maybe there are goofy outliers among them, but that really justifies avoiding measures that might stop 10 or more mass shooting incidents per year? Seriously?

Which disorders? Again, homosexuality was still categorized as a disorder when we were kids.

they have a set of disorders which affect judgement, rationality and other DEFINED aspects of human behavior which could be seen as making an individual an obvious risk. This isn't as hard as you wish to make it, nor as potentially prone to misuse in any sort of vigilant society.

And what process do you propose for making sure that bigoted or biased doctors don't note someone as having a disorder maliciously? Here's just one example to consider -- Dr. Jones has been cheating on his wife. She finds out, leaves him, files for divorce, and takes everything. He starts threatening her. She wants a gun for protection -- but Dr. Jones has flagged her as mentally unstable. This is the sort of scenario you have to consider if you want to use mental health assessments as part of the background checks required for firearms.

in a sense, utterly improbable, but you DO bring up a common scenario for violence that mental health checks do not prevent: certain mass shootings, and other attacks stem from short term extreme dispair due to relationship issues. These would not be documented by a screening process. This is why the other absolutely necessary component to sensible gun laws is a SUBSTANTIAL wait period from moment of purchase to actual delivery of the weapon. Think of it as a cooling off period, or whatever, but a 30-day minimum would serve both to allow folks to psychically regroup and/or be identified as a danger by a police agency.

Again, I'm not saying it's impossible (*vision), I'm just saying you have to take this sort of thing seriously and not just gloss over it.

these words are quite true, but I don't conflate taking it seriously with tossing out a series of equally improbable 'what ifs', and I seem to hear a bit of those, not in any way meaning to limit that observation to your words alone.

woodchip wrote:

Ferno wrote:

Lothar wrote:The issue isn't that we can't recognize problems. It's that as soon as you let people judge others' worthiness, you introduce the possibility not just of outright bigotry, but of implicit systemic bias.

/faceplam
we're talking about mental health professionals, doctors, specialists, giving the diagnoses. not a questionnaire that a merchant or government official hands out.

I can tell from experience from going to 2 different cardiologists and getting 2 totally different ekg results. Think your health pros won't all come to the same conclusion if they looked at the same person? Think some of them won't look at a person differently when they know he is applying to buy a firearm?

valid to SOME extent, but I can't recall hearing much about psychiatric professionals NOT agreeing that the symptoms present clear risk to oneself or others. Whether they are due to, say, schizophrenia or some affective disorder, or a mix of PTSD and certain drugs might be a question that takes years to figure out(probably similar to many with cardiac issues.....took my Drs about 2 years of constant tinkering to effetively treat my blood pressure, see above with your ticker). As I said to Lothar above, your fears about some sort of sinister attack on your rights makes you set the bar really high for those trying to find commonsense fixes that would lower our incidence of mass violence.

Slick, not a matter of agreeing what symptoms are cause of concern but interpreting a persons symptoms. I suspect doctors with a bias and suspicion of people wanting to own firearms may find symptoms where none exist...as in my link to the vet who was committed to institutional care when it wasn't warranted.

woodchip wrote: So am I fucked up because I have nine firearms. Or do you start to see how a person can accumulate a "★■◆●ing Arsenal"?

In a word, yes, I think you are. Are you trying to drive the local squirrel population completely extinct or something? But then again, in most circumstances, I consider feeling the need to own even one firearm to be rather suspect.

If you had any idea what unrepentant assholes some red squirrels out in the country could be, you would shoot them too.

You have to realize, Top Gun, that people live in all kinds of environments and social atmospheres, and come from different backgrounds. Just because that's how it looks from where you are, and in the crowds you frequent doesn't mean it's a reliable sign that people are unbalanced in their thinking. I'm dead certain there are people within a 10 mile radius of me that recognize only force (not law), and to fall afoul of them and their activities could mean lying dead in an alley somewhere. I saw two heavy hitters on motorcycles, in my formerly calm neighborhood who were obviously HUNTING for someone a while back. Homicide happens, you know? The police are a lot more practiced at tracking down perpetrators than preventing killings in the first place. Not all of us can live and move in gated communities or high-priced, heavily manicured/policed cities.

literally LOL'ed @ "unrepentant ★■◆● red squirrels"

Lothar wrote:Oh, and for what it's worth, I absolutely take mental health seriously. I have a special needs child. I have family members who have suffered from all sorts of mental health disorders. Suggesting that I think mental health diagnoses are "completely subjective" is way, way off. But there is some room for subjectivity, and room for implicit biases to creep in, even in terms of who gets referred for further evaluation and who doesn't.

Ducking the question, acting like we don't need to worry about doctors screwing up diagnoses or even intentionally malicious flagging, isn't good enough. Again, I point you to "voter literacy tests".

then why did you even suggest that mental health criteria is subjective?

intentionally malicious flagging

Are you really implying that some doctors would be inclined to jeopardize their medical license and risk being disbarred and discredited based on a personal vendetta?

It takes them years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to obtain that medical degree, and to even think they would throw that away based on the assumption that they "might intentionally flag" someone from owning a firearm is simply insane. The professional standards simply forbid it.

And no, I'm not ducking the question. I recognize it as a question that you really should be asking the mental health professional you deal with.

Top Gun wrote:I just want to know why the hell anyone feels the need to own 14 separate guns. Like, unless they're non-functioning historical pieces, what sort of **** mental processes are at work there? Do we really want to live in a society where people can accrue personal ******* armories?

Because they can? Why do some people own 14 separate cars? Why do some people have 14 separate pictures on their walls? Why do some people have 14 pairs of shoes?

Boiling this down to some sort of measure of utility ignores the real question - and sets yourself up for later arguments of "well, the police have guns to protect you, so you don't need guns at all." If owning guns is a protected right, then why they own them and how many they own is irrelevant.\

EDIT:

Ferno, I tend to agree with Lothar's take on mental health.... why is it subjective? Because it hinges on the judgement of some psychologist.

Ferno wrote:Are you really implying that some doctors would be inclined to jeopardize their medical license and risk being disbarred and discredited based on a personal vendetta?

It takes them years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to obtain that medical degree, and to even think they would throw that away based on the assumption that they "might intentionally flag" someone from owning a firearm is simply insane. The professional standards simply forbid it.

And no, I'm not ducking the question. I recognize it as a question that you really should be asking the mental health professional you deal with.

You bet I think that could and would happen. I think it would be very hard to turn into a disbarment as long as the person didn't do something like put their true intentions into writing. All the doctor would have to say is "I concluded that I had doubts about the person's long term mental health and erred on the side of caution." I can see there being a way to back up such a decision, for anyone. (I've had a professional psychologist that I know tell me "At the end of the day, we're all diagnosable.")

BTW, Top Gun, people who own a lot of guns own a lot of guns because they like guns. Maybe they're in an on-going search for that perfect gun. Guns are not all the same. Guns have different features, shoot different calibers, are better for certain situations or customized for certain purposes (long-range target practice, long-range hunting, mid-range hunting, competitive shooting, most practical for concealed carry, most practical if a mob decides to torch your establishment with you in it, most practical to get an intruder out of your house quickly, most Desert Eagle, or most Dirty Harry, ...). If you're a hobbyist, you usually end up buying "one more" many times along the way. No one goes out and buys an armory all at once. A person heavily involved in shooting and hunting could own a dozen firearms easily without even filling all of the niches. It's like any hobby, except it engenders a higher degree of responsibility.

Snoopy: in the case of an evaluation for owning a firearm, I'm quite confident that such a thing will never happen. It wouldn't be a case of a slight deviation (EG: slight narcissistic tendencies), but rather a case of a major danger to society (EG: major sociopathic traits). You wouldn't give a pyromaniac a lighter and ether, would you?

Let me ask all of you a question.

We accept the fact that pilots need medical and mental examinations to fly, we accept the fact that people needs physical examinations to keep driving vehicles. So why is it that when mental health examinations is even suggested, people lose their damn minds?

So by your logic, perhaps we should have mental exams and license people to buy alcohol. After all more people die by drunks than by shooters each year so why are drunks not controlled more?

Ferno wrote:



Are you really implying that some doctors would be inclined to jeopardize their medical license and risk being disbarred and discredited based on a personal vendetta?

It takes them years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to obtain that medical degree, and to even think they would throw that away based on the assumption that they "might intentionally flag" someone from owning a firearm is simply insane. The professional standards simply forbid it.

And no, I'm not ducking the question. I recognize it as a question that you really should be asking the mental health professional you deal with.

Doctors have to carry something called medical malpractice insurance for when they screw up. Do you think psychiatrists don't do the same? And if you don't think there are doctors out there who wouldn't have a agenda, I can sell you the Trump Tower for a reasonable price.

woodchip wrote:Doctors have to carry something called medical malpractice insurance for when they screw up. Do you think psychiatrists don't do the same? And if you don't think there are doctors out there who wouldn't have a agenda...blah, blah, blah

once again, I ask how you can base the rationale for NOT doing something that is both sensible and attacks a key issue, because you are paranoid that some rarest of outliers MIGHT, MAYBE do, SOMEDAY??

I can sell you the Trump Tower for a reasonable price.

oh, my! Are you one of those dupes that the Donald suckered into THAT deal? I am so sorry to hear that. Lotsa luck with the sale.

callmeslick wrote:

Lothar wrote:And there have never been bigots in any of those professions.

wait a minute.....your whole defense to your rationale boils down to some kind of paranoia about health professionals?

That's nowhere close to the most charitable interpretation of what I said. You're looking to criticize too quickly, without putting in adequate listening effort.

My rationale boils down to "we know that people and systems can be both intentionally and accidentally abusive." We know that people of certain racial and ethnic backgrounds get "randomly" checked more often, get harsher penalties for certain crimes, are less likely to get called back for job interviews, and so on -- sometimes due to outright bigotry, but other times just because the system has been tilted against them in subtle ways for a long time.

So if we're going to infringe on something as fundamental as the constitutional right to bear arms, the onus is on those proposing restrictions to make sure said infringement has adequate checks and balances in place to make sure it doesn't create an "underclass" that can't protect themselves. (How many individual shootings, rapes, robberies, etc. of those who might be disenfranchised by a biased system should I trade per mass shooting?)

you DO bring up a common scenario for violence that mental health checks do not prevent: certain mass shootings, and other attacks stem from short term extreme dispair due to relationship issues ... a 30-day minimum would serve both to allow folks to psychically regroup and/or be identified as a danger by a police agency

And, simultaneously, make an unarmed ex-partner of someone who was already armed before the relationship trouble began into an easy target.

I don't conflate taking it seriously with tossing out a series of equally improbable 'what ifs'

In a nation of 300,000,000 people, "improbable" things happen pretty often. Mass shootings themselves are pretty improbable. If you're going to build a system to reduce mass shootings from insane people, you have to account for what might naively appear to be "small" side-effects that are only relevant to 0.01% of the population (that's 30,000 people!)

Ferno wrote:

Lothar wrote:Oh, and for what it's worth, I absolutely take mental health seriously..... Again, I point you to "voter literacy tests".

then why did you even suggest that mental health criteria is subjective?

There are absolutely subjective components to mental health evaluations. In particular, "is this person a danger to themselves or others?" might involve a lot of objective observations, but ultimately there's plenty of room for subjectivity and bias to creep in to some types of diagnosis.

intentionally malicious flagging

Are you really implying that some doctors would be inclined to jeopardize their medical license and risk being disbarred and discredited based on a personal vendetta?

People are willing to jeopardize a lot of things based on a personal vendetta. Do you think someone willing to kill their ex wouldn't be willing to abuse their power to keep their ex from being able to get a gun?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=doctor+murder+lover

-----

Let me be clear on one thing: I'm not against mental health requirements as part of a background check. What I'm against is the naive approach that brushes off "MIGHT, MAYBE, SOMEDAY" side-effects as insignificant and not worth addressing. Hundreds of people have died in mass shootings this year, and some of those shootings "might, maybe" have been prevented by mental health flags -- saving like, dozens of lives. But naively-implemented policy might cost hundreds of lives and allow thousands of assaults, rapes, etc. That's not a good trade.

Ferno wrote:We accept the fact that pilots need medical and mental examinations to fly, we accept the fact that people needs physical examinations to keep driving vehicles. So why is it that when mental health examinations is even suggested, people lose their damn minds?

Because we're talking about the difference between a licensed privilege and a protected right. Furthermore, the licensing medicals aren't aimed a deciding if the person is likely to misuse the privilege... it's aiming to decide if the person is physically capable of safely operating the vehicle in question.

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:What I'd like to know is why the shooter, who was supposedly having mental issues which his mother knew about, owned 13 or 14 guns in the first place?

Was he still living with his mother?

Yep, he was. Now why his mother allowed him own that many guns while she knew he was a little unstable mentally, I don't know. The neighbors reported hearing him throwing loud temper tantrums, like a 2 year old. Not a lot of other information has come out yet though. The father of the shooter was asking the exact same question about all those guns on live TV too.

"the father" lol

Lothar wrote:Let me be clear on one thing: I'm not against mental health requirements as part of a background check. What I'm against is the naive approach that brushes off "MIGHT, MAYBE, SOMEDAY" side-effects as insignificant and not worth addressing. Hundreds of people have died in mass shootings this year, and some of those shootings "might, maybe" have been prevented by mental health flags -- saving like, dozens of lives. But naively-implemented policy might cost hundreds of lives and allow thousands of assaults, rapes, etc. That's not a good trade.

Never said you were. So let's put that one to bed.

But to dismiss any reasonable background checks based on the unlikely chance of malpractice, when the assessee and assessor don't see each other is quite unrealistic.

For malpractice to apply, the person would have to have a) doctor-patent relationship, b) would have to breach the duty of reasonable care, c) harm must have occurred and, d) a casual link must be demonstrated between negligence and injury.

I'm pretty sure every potential gun owner would not have a one-on-one relationship with a doctor, nor would any harm be committed if they were to be denied something they want to buy.

a protected right.

which revolves around a want. Don't kid yourself; guns are luxury items.

it's aiming to decide if the person is physically capable of safely operating the vehicle in question.

exactly. aiming to decide if the person is physically and mentally capable to operate a potentially dangerous object.

Ferno wrote:But to dismiss any reasonable background checks based on the unlikely chance of malpractice, when the assessee and assessor don't see each other is quite unrealistic

I'm not dismissing reasonable background checks.

I'm suggesting that including mental health assessments in background checks requires more than just slapping a "mentally ill" flag onto the pre-existing system. 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.

Checks and balances. Systems in place to prevent abuse by vindictive mental health professionals. Systems in place to allow people with non-dangerous mental illnesses to still protect themselves. 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.

Ferno wrote:

But to dismiss any reasonable background checks based on the unlikely chance of malpractice, when the assessee and assessor don't see each other is quite unrealistic.

Wouldn't having a mental assessment be worthless if one did not go to the psychiatrist? And by not going would having a mental assessment be in fact a case for malpractice?

Frankly, Lothar and Woody, I think you are both missing the boat, while raising valid points. Yes, the idea of mental health component to the screening process has to be thought through, and CANNOT be slap-dashed onto current law. To my mind, the greatest risk of abuse is around family or other people requesting committment hearings on people out of some vindictiveness. As much as the mental health issue gets brought up, though, I don't view that as important, in terms of potential lawmaking as a couple other items:
1. Loophole that allows transfer of weapon to buyer if background check doesn't come back in 3 business days. Coupled with a long-standing effort by the members of Congress to choke off staffing and equipment by which the Federal background checks get performed, this is a very dangerous type of Catch-22.

2. Mandatory background checks and paperwork on file from EVERY firearm transfer. Hell, you have to file papers every time you sell, trade or give away a freaking car, why not a gun?

3. We need a mandatory 30-day waiting period between purchase and actual transfer. Makes things inconvenient for show sellers? Too fecking bad. Would I consider exemptions in some circumstances? Sure, but I would have to hear some serious details. So many of the crimes we wring hands over are committed without a great deal of long-term planning between gun purchase and the act itself. Having 30 days in between MIGHT provide clarity for some people who act out of anger or even hatred, and cause them to reconsider. For that chance alone, I see no significant downside to a 30 day hold.

apropos, and quite a succinct view of the whole matter:

callmeslick wrote:I think you are both missing the boat, while raising valid points. Yes, the idea of mental health component to the screening process has to be thought through, and CANNOT be slap-dashed onto current law

And since that's what we've been discussing, I don't know why I'm missing the boat.

You can't expect every post to be comprehensive regarding every related topic. I'm talking about mental health right now, because that's what we've been talking about. I also think a lot of loopholes need to be closed -- background checks should happen even with family transfers, "it didn't come back soon enough" shouldn't default to "so I guess you're good", etc. But when it comes to mental health, let's not just slap it on.

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.

Lothar wrote:

callmeslick wrote:I think you are both missing the boat, while raising valid points. Yes, the idea of mental health component to the screening process has to be thought through, and CANNOT be slap-dashed onto current law

And since that's what we've been discussing, I don't know why I'm missing the boat.

You can't expect every post to be comprehensive regarding every related topic. I'm talking about mental health right now, because that's what we've been talking about. I also think a lot of loopholes need to be closed -- background checks should happen even with family transfers, "it didn't come back soon enough" shouldn't default to "so I guess you're good", etc. But when it comes to mental health, let's not just slap it on.

I merely meant you were focusing on a what-if that had essentially negligible possibility of occurring in any professional setting. The abuse of hearing requests for committment already DOES occur.

callmeslick wrote:I merely meant you were focusing on a what-if that had essentially negligible possibility of occurring

in comparison to another scenario that's also actually quite low-probability. People were talking about "mass shootings" -- which have killed a few hundred people in the US this year. We could stop 100% of that type of shooting, and still have it be a net negative as a result of something with "essentially negligible possibility of occurring", because we're dealing with a population of 300,000,000. Something that affects 0.0001% of the population is essentially negligible, and an effect of that size would equal all of the mass shootings in the US. If we're going to say "let's solve mass shootings by slapping this solution on to the pre-existing system", we have to look at seemingly negligible effects.

------

semi-related: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pl ... -killings/

I also enjoyed this unfortunately-titled article on political discourse: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Good God. Perhaps the mother should be charged for her complicity in these murders. She sounds like a loon herself, who pretty much enabled her own son to go out and shoot innocent people.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/07/or ... in-online/

http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/vid ... 9775555870

Ferno wrote:a protected right.

which revolves around a want. Don't kid yourself; guns are luxury items.

You're still moving the goal posts. It doesn't matter if the item is a "want" or a "need" - if it's a right, it's a right.

Ferno wrote:exactly. aiming to decide if the person is physically and mentally capable to operate a potentially dangerous object.

Yet, you ignored my point. The medicals aren't aimed at preventing wilful misuse, and they are addressed to licensing a privilege.

callmeslick wrote:3. We need a mandatory 30-day waiting period between purchase and actual transfer. Makes things inconvenient for show sellers? Too fecking bad. Would I consider exemptions in some circumstances? Sure, but I would have to hear some serious details. So many of the crimes we wring hands over are committed without a great deal of long-term planning between gun purchase and the act itself. Having 30 days in between MIGHT provide clarity for some people who act out of anger or even hatred, and cause them to reconsider. For that chance alone, I see no significant downside to a 30 day hold.

I see a significant downside, it'd be a complete waste of time and wouldn't actually accomplish anything you think it would.

If someone hasn't reconsidered shooting someone within the first 5 seconds or so of coming up with the idea, they probably won't no matter how long of a retarded waiting period you put in before the transfer. Quit wasting our time on idiotic non-solutions; they might make you feel better, but it'd only be a placebo effect.

As for your point 2, that sounds fairly reasonable. One thing to keep in mind, automobiles are actually slightly more dangerous in America than guns. But arguably, setting up a better paper trail for guns also makes sense given how close the two are in threat levels.

Amusing statistics gathered while researching this post: Poisoning is another 50% more dangerous than either traffic or guns. But the ultimate killer in America remains the cheeseburger and fries (followed closely by cigarettes [read: heart disease, cancer]).

snoopy wrote:You're still moving the goal posts. It doesn't matter if the item is a "want" or a "need" - if it's a right, it's a right.

I'm not moving anything. It's a bs argument that won't stand.

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.

Yet, you ignored my point. The medicals aren't aimed at preventing wilful misuse, and they are addressed to licensing a privilege.

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!)

Like I've said before. As soon as mental health is brought up, even if it means it would be an invisible part of the background check conduced by a forensic psychiatrist, they just go batshit and scream 'don't touch my guns! I ain't crazy!'

As far as I'm concerned, you absolutely have to have your head screwed on straight if you own a firearm, otherwise we'll see another mass shooting at around january. And then we'll be on the merry-go-round again.

Krom wrote:[\Amusing statistics gathered while researching this post: Poisoning is another 50% more dangerous than either traffic or guns. But the ultimate killer in America remains the cheeseburger and fries (followed closely by cigarettes [read: heart disease, cancer]).

comparisons to cars, foodstuff and other items NOT DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE is sort of a blatant smokescreen, isn't it?

Not in my opinion, because the issue here is the abuse/misuse of a tool or a substance, not it’s proper usage.

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

Spidey wrote:Not in my opinion, because the issue here is the abuse/misuse of a tool or a substance, not it’s proper usage.

but no one designs a car, cheeseburger or whatever to injure or kill others. A gun is non-functional if NOT designed to do so. Come on, this should be easy to grasp. And, yes, it makes a difference.

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

what a steaming pile of BS. Weapon designers, I dare say, do not ever consider defense of liberty at the design stage. A gun is intended by design to be a deadly weapon, and given that we have an Armed Force more than capable of defending liberty and territory, there is utterly ZERO jusitification for not getting distribution of deadly weapons under some sort of sensible regulation. I'm always amused by the almost knee-jerk reference to cars. Motor vehicles require a driver's license granted ONLY after proof of both technical proficiency and knowledge of all rules, regular inspection and registration, paper trail if transferred(even to scrap), and considerable restrictions on when and where one can drive. Now, I get that driving is a privilege, as opposed to a Constitutional Right. However, I'm not the one that brings up the deadly nature of cars at regular intervals, either........

Guns are designed to injure and kill.

Guns are not designed to murder.

Your armed forces argument is a steaming pile of BS, didn’t you ever hear of the partisans?

Most of your arguments are steaming piles of BS, like the way you always mention the old west without telling the other side of the story. (how firearms actually helped settle, tame and civilize)

So take your steaming pile of BS and …

Spidey wrote:Guns are designed to injure and kill.

thanks, you made my point

.

Your armed forces argument is a steaming pile of BS, didn’t you ever hear of the partisans?

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.

Most of your arguments are steaming piles of BS, like the way you always mention the old west without telling the other side of the story. (how firearms actually helped settle, tame and civilize)

once again, we, as a society, have pretty much settled the place, and in the old West, they realized that at that point, personal gun carry was a hazard to decent citizens. It still holds true.

So take your steaming pile of BS and …

....serve us more? Thanks.

Your point is a statement of the obvious, try saying something we all don't already understand.