Fatal shooting at Denver screening of The Dark Knight Rises

Should a paranoid schizophrenic with a history of volatile behaviour be allowed to have guns?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has proven that he was legally "allowed to have" a gun. He certainly did obtain a gun, and I am sure the details will all come out in his trial. But to leap to the conclusion that this guy was some kook who exploited the law to do this, is just unreasonable. As has been pointed out, if he couldn't have obtained a gun, he seemed to have a keen knowledge on how to make explosives, he booby-trapped his apartment. Should we make whatever crude materials he used illegal to obtain without a note from your psychiatrist as well?
 
Dixie said:
I don't think anyone has proven that he was legally "allowed to have" a gun. He certainly did obtain a gun, and I am sure the details will all come out in his trial. But to leap to the conclusion that this guy was some kook who exploited the law to do this, is just unreasonable. As has been pointed out, if he couldn't have obtained a gun, he seemed to have a keen knowledge on how to make explosives, he booby-trapped his apartment. Should we make whatever crude materials he used illegal to obtain without a note from your psychiatrist as well?
Click to expand...

His use of the other crude materals did not result in anyones death.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
let's pass any law, see how it works, then fix whatever it breaks? you realize the potential danger in that, don't you?
Click to expand...

We're not talking about *any* law. We have plenty of data and evidence with which to see that what presently exists regarding gun rights is failing miserably. Expecting perfection is stupid - you and your 'rights' haven't ensured that, that much is obvious. So let's try for 'better'.
 
Disillusioned said:
You mean instead of the trans vaginal ultrasound? That would probably be easier, you can sleep through the therapy session
Click to expand...

Maybe that is the psych eval. If you are unwilling to subject yourself to inconvenience to practice a right to kill then you aren't ready for it... Maybe gun owners should have to get a trans vaginal ultrasound before buying weapons... (yes, I do know that men don't have a vagina, maybe they can ultrasound their butt.)

Anyway, can you imagine having to get a background check before using our fundamental rights like speaking out against your government? To vote? Before objecting to cops searching your house?

Man, that would be great, eh?
 
Bijou said:
We're not talking about *any* law. We have plenty of data and evidence with which to see that what presently exists regarding gun rights is failing miserably. Expecting perfection is stupid - you and your 'rights' haven't ensured that, that much is obvious. So let's try for 'better'.
Click to expand...
we also have plenty of data and evidence that suggests you can't tell the difference between a dealer and a private seller at a gun show, so what makes you think this is a good step in the 'right' direction?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
we also have plenty of data and evidence that suggests you can't tell the difference between a dealer and a private seller at a gun show, so what makes you think this is a good step in the 'right' direction?
Click to expand...

Gee...let me think....the fact that whack jobs' gun 'rights' facilitate movie-theater shoot-ups?
 
Bijou said:
Gee...let me think....the fact that whack jobs' gun 'rights' facilitate movie-theater shoot-ups?
Click to expand...
lets take a look at some history

1) no guns signs at theaters........that didn't work
2) requiring licenses to carry guns......that didn't work
3) laws against killing people........that didn't work
4) laws against discharging a firearm in public.......that didn't work
5) background checks on all FFL purchases to deny prohibited persons from acquring guns........that didn't work

so now you want to federalize a database, require all states to implement it, so that anyone who has been involuntarily committed (ripe for abuse by anti gun politicians and police) is denied their 2nd Amendment rights? and you think that the benefits outweigh the harm caused by this?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
lets take a look at some history

1) no guns signs at theaters........that didn't work
2) requiring licenses to carry guns......that didn't work
3) laws against killing people........that didn't work
4) laws against discharging a firearm in public.......that didn't work
5) background checks on all FFL purchases to deny prohibited persons from acquring guns........that didn't work

so now you want to federalize a database, require all states to implement it, so that anyone who has been involuntarily committed (ripe for abuse by anti gun politicians and police) is denied their 2nd Amendment rights? and you think that the benefits outweigh the harm caused by this?
Click to expand...

I think it's time to start implementing something like that, yes.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so how do you go about correcting the inevitable abuses that occur?
Click to expand...

Well it's much easier to correct the mistake of not giving a gun to a stable person than it is to correct the damage done by giving a gun to an unstable person. So go ahead and sort that one out in your head and see what you come up with. It's doable. You just don't want to do it.
 
Bijou said:
Well it's much easier to correct the mistake of not giving a gun to a stable person than it is to correct the damage done by giving a gun to an unstable person. So go ahead and sort that one out in your head and see what you come up with. It's doable. You just don't want to do it.
Click to expand...
you are the one proposing this law, so it would be up to you to figure out the fixes. we need to see what you have in mind. see, if I come up with fixes, then I now have to run against opposition from the likes of you who prefer unarmed people over armed people. so fix what you've broken.
 
leaningright said:
I may get some opposition from some of my allies but this is common sense to me. An approach to solve this would be making previous mental illness and/or institunalization due to mental illness a part of the instantaneous background checks. Some may holler about someone's right to privacy but the effort to keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill (just like criminals) trumps privacy, IMO. But then I wasn't against ALL of the Patriot Act.
Click to expand...

Ah, the voice of reason!
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you are the one proposing this law, so it would be up to you to figure out the fixes. we need to see what you have in mind. see, if I come up with fixes, then I now have to run against opposition from the likes of you who prefer unarmed people over armed people. so fix what you've broken.
Click to expand...

I've proposed a possible remedy to the problem of whackos shooting up movie theaters: no guns for whackos. Start with denying established whackos gun rights. Implement a method for determining mental stability as a condition for obtaining guns. Those wiser than me can figure out the particulars, but there's the crux. You don't like it. Quel surprise. That's my answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top