The ultimate 2nd amendment poll!

[JoeB131]

Excuse me? No what I am doing is showing the fallacy in your opinion that you are basing as facts, you have done this several times in as many threads.But you are the one that claim the murderer had access to those firearms. You are the one that trying to frame the outline of the story to fit your agenda.

He had the firearms.

He had access to them.

The law didn't mean for him to have it, but good old Mom, she had a bunch of guns lying around the house.

Including an AR-15 assualt rifle....

 

[flacaltenn]

When all you can see is the gun --- you're missing the opportunity to fix the problem.

How about prior to entry into High School EVERY STUDENT gets a mental health screening?

((Not that I'm a fan of that pseudo-science, but I have hopes that we will soon have better tools to LOOK for potential explosive characters))

Not sure how that would have done any good in this case. The woman KNEW her son was crazy. His brother knew he was crazy.

They gave him access to guns, anyway.

Well there's your problem... He was also given "access to alcohol and cars and power tools" wasn't he? The obvious problem was IGNORED.. Because anyone irresponsible enough to live with a crazy person and not lock up all the sharp objects --- is probably crazy enough to decieve themselves into being able to "handle" the problem without intervention..

I don't want the Psych community getting their claws into innocents and ruining their lives with their primitive tools... So ALL kids should be SCREENED at entry to High School with the results of the screening being held in Medical confidentiality (Dr to family)...

THEN ---- we can work on what is the responsibility of the PARENT and the PSYCH Dr. to respond to the results.. At least that way.. Society KNOWS that the parent and the Dr are not OBLIVIOUS to the obvious potential threat that might exist.

In this case --- a screening from a Psych doc SAYING there was a potential problem COULD be (perhaps with new laws) PULLED from the records if the patient went batshit crazy and used against the parents (or the patient) if no help was solicited from professionals.

 

[JakeStarkey]

flacaltenn, access to guns as opposed to power tools or cars is a difference of DEGREE not kind.

The potential for mayhem with certain types of guns are much higher than with power tools or cars.

Your comparison will no longer be allowed as credible in the larger discussion.

 

[flacaltenn]

flacaltenn, access to guns as opposed to power tools or cars is a difference of DEGREE not kind.

The potential for mayhem with certain types of guns are much higher than with power tools or cars.

Your comparison will no longer be allowed as credible in the larger discussion.

besides the fact that purposely taking 12 lives in a crash with a day school minivan IS in the same league --- that doesn't negate the suggestion to evaluate EVERYONE at a certain age range. Just so the family has been made aware of the REAL potential danger -- the batship crazy person that they are living with.

Gun - crazy person ---> small danger.

Crazy person + Gun ----> large danger.

Crazy person - Gun ----> medium danger.

Solve the set of simultaneous equations above and you'll find the problem is the Crazy Person.. Not the gun.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

flacaltenn, access to guns as opposed to power tools or cars is a difference of DEGREE not kind.

The potential for mayhem with certain types of guns are much higher than with power tools or cars.

Your comparison will no longer be allowed as credible in the larger discussion.

besides the fact that purposely taking 12 lives in a crash with a day school minivan IS in the same league --- that doesn't negate the suggestion to evaluate EVERYONE at a certain age range. Just so the family has been made aware of the REAL potential danger -- the batship crazy person that they are living with.

Gun - crazy person ---> small danger.

Crazy person + Gun ----> large danger.

Crazy person - Gun ----> medium danger.

Solve the set of simultaneous equations above and you'll find the problem is the Crazy Person.. Not the gun.

You've won me over.

So, how do we get rid of the crazy people?

 

[flacaltenn]

flacaltenn, access to guns as opposed to power tools or cars is a difference of DEGREE not kind.

The potential for mayhem with certain types of guns are much higher than with power tools or cars.

Your comparison will no longer be allowed as credible in the larger discussion.

besides the fact that purposely taking 12 lives in a crash with a day school minivan IS in the same league --- that doesn't negate the suggestion to evaluate EVERYONE at a certain age range. Just so the family has been made aware of the REAL potential danger -- the batship crazy person that they are living with.

Gun - crazy person ---> small danger.

Crazy person + Gun ----> large danger.

Crazy person - Gun ----> medium danger.

Solve the set of simultaneous equations above and you'll find the problem is the Crazy Person.. Not the gun.

You've won me over.

So, how do we get rid of the crazy people?

Hey .. I'm struggling with that part.. Because I like Crazy people A LOT MORE than I like any on in Psychiatrics. Don't trust them. Don't honor their methods and tools. Don't believe they are effective.

Identifying real deviations and illnesses will have to wait awhile until you can SEE or MEASURE a psych problem. But with identifying POTENTIAL problems, I believe that normal social immersion, peer counseling, INCLUSION, and high expectations could all be better than Prozac or Ritalin...

 

[JoeB131]

When all you can see is the gun --- you're missing the opportunity to fix the problem.

How about prior to entry into High School EVERY STUDENT gets a mental health screening?

((Not that I'm a fan of that pseudo-science, but I have hopes that we will soon have better tools to LOOK for potential explosive characters))

Not sure how that would have done any good in this case. The woman KNEW her son was crazy. His brother knew he was crazy.

They gave him access to guns, anyway.

Well there's your problem... He was also given "access to alcohol and cars and power tools" wasn't he? The obvious problem was IGNORED.. Because anyone irresponsible enough to live with a crazy person and not lock up all the sharp objects --- is probably crazy enough to decieve themselves into being able to "handle" the problem without intervention..

I don't want the Psych community getting their claws into innocents and ruining their lives with their primitive tools... So ALL kids should be SCREENED at entry to High School with the results of the screening being held in Medical confidentiality (Dr to family)...

THEN ---- we can work on what is the responsibility of the PARENT and the PSYCH Dr. to respond to the results.. At least that way.. Society KNOWS that the parent and the Dr are not OBLIVIOUS to the obvious potential threat that might exist.

In this case --- a screening from a Psych doc SAYING there was a potential problem COULD be (perhaps with new laws) PULLED from the records if the patient went batshit crazy and used against the parents (or the patient) if no help was solicited from professionals.

OR we can just get privately owned guns out of the hands of crazy people... which seems a lot more simple than screening "everyone".

 

[JoeB131]

besides the fact that purposely taking 12 lives in a crash with a day school minivan IS in the same league --- that doesn't negate the suggestion to evaluate EVERYONE at a certain age range. Just so the family has been made aware of the REAL potential danger -- the batship crazy person that they are living with.

Gun - crazy person ---> small danger.

Crazy person + Gun ----> large danger.

Crazy person - Gun ----> medium danger.

Solve the set of simultaneous equations above and you'll find the problem is the Crazy Person.. Not the gun.

You've won me over.

So, how do we get rid of the crazy people?

Hey .. I'm struggling with that part.. Because I like Crazy people A LOT MORE than I like any on in Psychiatrics. Don't trust them. Don't honor their methods and tools. Don't believe they are effective.

Identifying real deviations and illnesses will have to wait awhile until you can SEE or MEASURE a psych problem. But with identifying POTENTIAL problems, I believe that normal social immersion, peer counseling, INCLUSION, and high expectations could all be better than Prozac or Ritalin...

Psychiatry is kind of like anything else... the attention goes to those who can make you rich, not where the resoruces are needed.

Which is why the crazy homless guy ranting at a lightpost gets to sleep on a grate and the businessman with mommy issues gets 20 years of therapy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Guys, the "tool" analogy is not admissible because the difference of KIND not degree.

The problem is the potential for a weapon's massive lethality coupled with the crazy person. The CT school shooting and the massacre of 77 youngsters in Norway clearly underline those points.

Both issues must be addressed.

besides the fact that purposely taking 12 lives in a crash with a day school minivan IS in the same league --- that doesn't negate the suggestion to evaluate EVERYONE at a certain age range. Just so the family has been made aware of the REAL potential danger -- the batship crazy person that they are living with.

Gun - crazy person ---> small danger.

Crazy person + Gun ----> large danger.

Crazy person - Gun ----> medium danger.

Solve the set of simultaneous equations above and you'll find the problem is the Crazy Person.. Not the gun.

You've won me over.

So, how do we get rid of the crazy people?

Hey .. I'm struggling with that part.. Because I like Crazy people A LOT MORE than I like any on in Psychiatrics. Don't trust them. Don't honor their methods and tools. Don't believe they are effective.

Identifying real deviations and illnesses will have to wait awhile until you can SEE or MEASURE a psych problem. But with identifying POTENTIAL problems, I believe that normal social immersion, peer counseling, INCLUSION, and high expectations could all be better than Prozac or Ritalin...

 

[JakeStarkey]

The answer is obvious: a statist progressive intervention. The only question is whether it will be liberal or conservative.

You've won me over.

So, how do we get rid of the crazy people?

Hey .. I'm struggling with that part.. Because I like Crazy people A LOT MORE than I like any on in Psychiatrics. Don't trust them. Don't honor their methods and tools. Don't believe they are effective.

Identifying real deviations and illnesses will have to wait awhile until you can SEE or MEASURE a psych problem. But with identifying POTENTIAL problems, I believe that normal social immersion, peer counseling, INCLUSION, and high expectations could all be better than Prozac or Ritalin...

Psychiatry is kind of like anything else... the attention goes to those who can make you rich, not where the resoruces are needed.

Which is why the crazy homless guy ranting at a lightpost gets to sleep on a grate and the businessman with mommy issues gets 20 years of therapy.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Guys, the "tool" analogy is not admissible because the difference of KIND not degree.

The problem is the potential for a weapon's massive lethality coupled with the crazy person. The CT school shooting and the massacre of 77 youngsters in Norway clearly underline those points.

Both issues must be addressed.

You've won me over.

So, how do we get rid of the crazy people?

Hey .. I'm struggling with that part.. Because I like Crazy people A LOT MORE than I like any on in Psychiatrics. Don't trust them. Don't honor their methods and tools. Don't believe they are effective.

Identifying real deviations and illnesses will have to wait awhile until you can SEE or MEASURE a psych problem. But with identifying POTENTIAL problems, I believe that normal social immersion, peer counseling, INCLUSION, and high expectations could all be better than Prozac or Ritalin...

I know. Incidentally, my post was sarcastic. I'm not sure anybody is picking up on that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I was not sure of the sarcasm. With flacaltenn, I have to deal with an uncanny knack for keeping the blinders on and ignoring reality.

Guys, the "tool" analogy is not admissible because the difference of KIND not degree.

The problem is the potential for a weapon's massive lethality coupled with the crazy person. The CT school shooting and the massacre of 77 youngsters in Norway clearly underline those points.

Both issues must be addressed.

Hey .. I'm struggling with that part.. Because I like Crazy people A LOT MORE than I like any on in Psychiatrics. Don't trust them. Don't honor their methods and tools. Don't believe they are effective.

Identifying real deviations and illnesses will have to wait awhile until you can SEE or MEASURE a psych problem. But with identifying POTENTIAL problems, I believe that normal social immersion, peer counseling, INCLUSION, and high expectations could all be better than Prozac or Ritalin...

I know. Incidentally, my post was sarcastic. I'm not sure anybody is picking up on that.

 

[JoeB131]

Or just setting up proper priorities.

Take your homeless guys. I was young enough to remember when the "HOmeless" started showing up.

By and large, you didn't see that sort of thing in the 1960's and 1970's, until some liberal goo-goos (as Richard Daley used to call them) saw One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest and decided it was just wrong we had mental hospitals locking people up and being mean to them.

So they went to courts and got the law changed that you can't lock them up unless they are "immediately" dangerous. Then they said, "Hey, let's build outpatient facilities instead". And Conservatives were all like, 'What, and give up our Dressage ponies?" Not that you can get these people to take their medicines if you don't lock them up.

So you get people like Loughner and Holmes and Lanza who should be in institutions instead out getting guns instead.

The answer is obvious: a statist progressive intervention. The only question is whether it will be liberal or conservative.

Hey .. I'm struggling with that part.. Because I like Crazy people A LOT MORE than I like any on in Psychiatrics. Don't trust them. Don't honor their methods and tools. Don't believe they are effective.

Identifying real deviations and illnesses will have to wait awhile until you can SEE or MEASURE a psych problem. But with identifying POTENTIAL problems, I believe that normal social immersion, peer counseling, INCLUSION, and high expectations could all be better than Prozac or Ritalin...

Psychiatry is kind of like anything else... the attention goes to those who can make you rich, not where the resoruces are needed.

Which is why the crazy homless guy ranting at a lightpost gets to sleep on a grate and the businessman with mommy issues gets 20 years of therapy.

 

[Dick Tuck]

 

[JoeB131]

I think that's a really old poster, because I remember seeing it back in the 1980's after some Student Government type put it up after he got shot by a street thug.

 

[Dick Tuck]

I think that's a really old poster, because I remember seeing it back in the 1980's after some Student Government type put it up after he got shot by a street thug.

It may be, but the proportions are still valid.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Excuse me? No what I am doing is showing the fallacy in your opinion that you are basing as facts, you have done this several times in as many threads.But you are the one that claim the murderer had access to those firearms. You are the one that trying to frame the outline of the story to fit your agenda.

He had the firearms.

He had access to them.

The law didn't mean for him to have it, but good old Mom, she had a bunch of guns lying around the house.

Including an AR-15 assualt rifle....

He didn't use any AR 15. So what do you want to happen when someone breaks in a home and is caught by the home owner kill the home invader even if they are out of the home because they grabbed a hand gun safe so the home owner will not be blamed for what the home invader will do when he get's the hand gun out of the safe?

 

[JoeB131]

Excuse me? No what I am doing is showing the fallacy in your opinion that you are basing as facts, you have done this several times in as many threads.But you are the one that claim the murderer had access to those firearms. You are the one that trying to frame the outline of the story to fit your agenda.

He had the firearms.

He had access to them.

The law didn't mean for him to have it, but good old Mom, she had a bunch of guns lying around the house.

Including an AR-15 assualt rifle....

He didn't use any AR 15. So what do you want to happen when someone breaks in a home and is caught by the home owner kill the home invader even if they are out of the home because they grabbed a hand gun safe so the home owner will not be blamed for what the home invader will do when he get's the hand gun out of the safe?

Maybe you need to rephrase that question where it sounds less retarded. I know that would be an effort for you, but please try.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Deflection. The killer was not a home invader, but a member of the family with access to the home.

Excuse me? No what I am doing is showing the fallacy in your opinion that you are basing as facts, you have done this several times in as many threads.But you are the one that claim the murderer had access to those firearms. You are the one that trying to frame the outline of the story to fit your agenda.

He had the firearms.

He had access to them.

The law didn't mean for him to have it, but good old Mom, she had a bunch of guns lying around the house.

Including an AR-15 assualt rifle....

He didn't use any AR 15. So what do you want to happen when someone breaks in a home and is caught by the home owner kill the home invader even if they are out of the home because they grabbed a hand gun safe so the home owner will not be blamed for what the home invader will do when he get's the hand gun out of the safe?

 

[GoneBezerk]

I voted ban automatic weapons....or at least make it very, very, very hard and expensive to get one.

I went to a gun show today and many weapons there today I didn't see the need for Joe Schmoe to own and I have more military experience than 99% of people at the show.

I believe military and police dislike seeing these automatic weapons in society more than most gun supporters. We don't see the value in some person on the street being able to play Rambo at the mall.

Of course, we are also the first ones to defend guns from the liberals that want to ban guns after yesterday.