DescentBB

....far better to wait for him to gun down 6 people.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-court ... im-n152696

Well, Texas is the wild west after all. Who cares if a gun owner is mentally ill or violent. All that matters is that everyone, mentally ill or restraining order or not, has the FREEDOM to carry a gun whenever and wherever they want. Maybe she should have carried a gun knowing how insane the guy was. But would that be promoting violence as a solution to other violence in a society that's supposed to be civil. Yee Haa Texas!!!!

tunnelcat wrote:Well, Texas is the wild west after all. Who cares if a gun owner is mentally ill or violent. All that matters is that everyone, mentally ill or restraining order or not, has the FREEDOM to carry a gun whenever and wherever they want. Maybe she should have carried a gun knowing how insane the guy was. But would that be promoting violence as a solution to other violence in a society that's supposed to be civil. Yee Haa Texas!!!!

How do you know Tx allowed him to carry? Article seems to indicate he came down from Utah looking for her. You like finger painting pictures with mud?

Well, laws restricting gun sales to sane and law abiding people should apply to all states, shouldn't it? Texas just happens to be more of the "freedom to own and carry no matter what" mindset.

actually, as I read it, the issue started out in the far west. If the guy is so unstable that he cannot see his own kids without a shrink present, WHY THE HELL SHOULDN'T SOMEONE COME AND REMOVE ALL GUNS FROM HIS POSSESSION?

Where is there any indication he possessed a gun before the day he used one to kill people?
I am willing to bet he got his hands on at least one, that much seems obvious, but when and how or to what degree any authority had an opportunity to take it away from him is not known to anyone except slick apparently.

Then again, all slick needs is a victim of gunfire before he can fill in the blanks to suit his politics. To hell with details he has an agenda to drive.

I feel sorry for those 6 victims…no wait…this thread is about the gun nut…sorry.

wife and I have been talking about getting our CCW permit. too many lib ERRRRRRRR, crazy people out there to not protect ourselves.

CUDA wrote:wife and I have been talking about getting our CCW permit. too many lib ERRRRRRRR, crazy people out there to not protect ourselves.

I'm taking a wild guess here that you and Mrs. CUDA have no active mental health issues resulting in legal injunctions, right? Because the issue with this tragic event seems(not absolute yet) to be that mental health injunctions in one state(Utah) did not prevent obtaining a weapon in another(Texas). And yes, the issue really IS the victims. How many do we continue to tolerate in defense of a 'right' that is carried to a level never intended for purposes never intended?

callmeslick wrote:How many do we continue to tolerate in defense of a 'right' that is carried to a level never intended for purposes never intended?

fixed [/quote]

Can you detail the exact level of the right you think should be allowed and show how it would have prevented this tragedy?

And if you succeed in finding a viable solution would you please take to task all those left of center who will disagree with your 'pro gun' position instead of just doing something like your original post?

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:How many do we continue to tolerate in defense of a 'right' that is carried to a level never intended for purposes never intended?

Can you detail the exact level of the right you think should be allowed and show how it would have prevented this tragedy?

sure(double check your quote attribution, by the way). While free to own arms, the citizenry should also take(collectively) the responsibility to maintain robust limits and oversight of who should have that freedom restricted. In this case, mental health red flags should have resulted in IMMEDIATE revokation of permits to own weapons, and an interstate status update that would prevent purchase of same.

And what level of mental health problem would trigger guns being disallowed?

woodchip wrote:And what level of mental health problem would trigger guns being disallowed?

professionally deemed a threat to themselves or others. Similar to requirements for consideration of involuntary commission in some states.

Problem is slick, if you get labeled with any sort of mental issues runs the risk of having the authorities confiscating the patients firearms. And you open the whole can of worms having a doctor breech the doctor/patient relationship.

We don't know if he got around any checks or that they didn't apply so I don't know if what you propose is on target. I doubt seriously the demagogues in your Party will see that as enough though. Good luck getting them to go along with simple rational solutions, but I commend your offer in this instance. It isn't nearly as rabid as it has been in the past though so bear with my skepticism over your position until I see it has stopped wavering...

woodchip wrote:And what level of mental health problem would trigger guns being disallowed?

I'd think a restraining order would meet that test.

Not all restraining orders are issued due to mental health issues.

woodchip wrote:Not all restraining orders are issued due to mental health issues.

Woody is correct. The nature of this guys SHOULD have been a warning: he wasn't allowed to see his own kids without a psychologist present.

There are a lot of gun owners who would be on board with smart regulation but the anti-gun movement has them scared to give an inch. That fear isn't without good cause.

If you want to move toward sensible legislation you have a bigger bogey man than the NRA to overcome over there on the left side of the aisle.

Will Robinson wrote:There are a lot of gun owners who would be on board with smart regulation but the anti-gun movement has them scared to give an inch. That fear isn't without good cause.

actually the fear(and I agree with your core assessment) seems to be mostly whipped up money-raising/election winning rhetoric from the gun lobby and certain conservative ideologues. Seriously, I hang out frequently with the people you fear, and there is nothing NEAR a critical mass of interest in any sort of invasive gun regulation.

If you want to move toward sensible legislation you have a bigger bogey man than the NRA to overcome over there on the left side of the aisle.

I disagree, but it IS going to, sadly, take a bit more time for enough gun owners to get the real source of there fears identified.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:There are a lot of gun owners who would be on board with smart regulation but the anti-gun movement has them scared to give an inch. That fear isn't without good cause.

actually the fear(and I agree with your core assessment) seems to be mostly whipped up money-raising/election winning rhetoric from the gun lobby and certain conservative ideologues. Seriously, I hang out frequently with the people you fear, and there is nothing NEAR a critical mass of interest in any sort of invasive gun regulation.

And the left does the exact same kind of rear mongering themselves at their fund raising events.
And who cares about the 10 fictitious people you hang out with. Like they are representative of the seething mass of gun haters out there.

woodchip wrote:
And the left does the exact same kind of rear mongering themselves at their fund raising events.

to be sure. Especially about women's issues at the moment, if my 'inbox' is any indication.

And who cares about the 10 fictitious people you hang out with. Like they are representative of the seething mass of gun haters out there.

show me evidence of this 'seething mass' then. Where do you get your convictions? I want real numbers, not cherry-picked out of context quotes, real polling that breaks down by ideology, party, however you wish, that shows a large number of people wishing ANYTHING beyond commonsense regulation, with state-to-state consistency.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:
And the left does the exact same kind of rear mongering themselves at their fund raising events.

to be sure. Especially about women's issues at the moment, if my 'inbox' is any indication.

And who cares about the 10 fictitious people you hang out with. Like they are representative of the seething mass of gun haters out there.

show me evidence of this 'seething mass' then. Where do you get your convictions? I want real numbers, not cherry-picked out of context quotes, real polling that breaks down by ideology, party, however you wish, that shows a large number of people wishing ANYTHING beyond commonsense regulation, with state-to-state consistency.

You had national organizations dedicated to banning all handguns. A vice President who says we only need a shotgun. You said the same thing.
Legislators trying to tax ammunition out of reach of most consumers when the pro gun lobby gets too tough for them to go after guns at the ballot box.
Trying to pass anti-assault rifle legislation so vague it encompasses almost any weapon in the market!

The list goes on and on. None of it reasonable.

Not once has a left leaning legislator offered to symbolically ratify the individual right interpretation while asking for reasonable regulations. He would be kicked out of your Party if he did.

You don't choose to recognize what your side of the debate has done. Hearing you tell us not to worry is like an ostrich with his head buried in the sand saying he's never seen any such thing as hyenas.

woodchip wrote:Problem is slick, if you get labeled with any sort of mental issues runs the risk of having the authorities confiscating the patients firearms. And you open the whole can of worms having a doctor breech the doctor/patient relationship.

Ya know, I've noticed that every form I've filled out at a doctor's office lately has this one question right smack in the middle of all the other health questions.

"Do you own a gun or have a gun in the house?"

Why ask that question in the first place if doctors are supposed to respect patient confidentiality? And if they report to the police that a depressed patient owns a gun, will telling them about that detail violate patient confidentiality?

I guess it could, if you were dumb enough to answer the question.

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:Problem is slick, if you get labeled with any sort of mental issues runs the risk of having the authorities confiscating the patients firearms. And you open the whole can of worms having a doctor breech the doctor/patient relationship.

Ya know, I've noticed that every form I've filled out at a doctor's office lately has this one question right smack in the middle of all the other health questions.

"Do you own a gun or have a gun in the house?"

Why ask that question in the first place if doctors are supposed to respect patient confidentiality? And if they report to the police that a depressed patient owns a gun, will telling them about that detail violate patient confidentiality?

There is a law in most places that relieves Doctors of the confidentiality if they think the patient is an imminent threat.

I wonder if, when all those kids getting Ritalin from schools, when they grow up, are going to have to answer yes on the application to buy a gun where they ask if you have ever been treated for mental illness?

Spidey wrote:I guess it could, if you were dumb enough to answer the question.

I'm not that dumb.

then we have this guy.....I'm sure he had the semi-auto rifle because he was a sportsman, right?
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/dispa ... ?gt1=51501

common sense, that's all I'm asking for.