Suggs and Guns

[JAB1985]

Under your hypothetical, I could see possibly taking some sort of written test (a very basic are you competent test) for someone who wanted to carry a weapon, but not for simple ownership to protect your house.

I haven't taken the concealed carry course here in NC yet, but I'd imagine there is something on there that would cover something like that.

But for simple ownership, I would say that passing a driver's test, doing the things necessary to keep a license, getting up everyday and going to a job, paying your bills, owning a home etc. passing a background check is enough proof that you're a mentally competent person to own a gun and keep it in your house.

we just disagree that there isnt more that could be done to make it safer, as your obviously fine with it as is. You argued that, demented people will find a way to make Aurora, VT, etc happen regardless. Id agree and feel if you stop them from committing such heinous crimes with guns, people would stop pointing to the gun as the culprit and possibly loosen up on "gun control" in general. I dont think theres any question that Aurora and VT would not pass a simple psych eval, when listening to people around them they usually described them as "weird" or an "outcast", which is all id be trying to eliminate. no different than the background check already looking for mentally ill or insane, its just checking to see if they are but undiagnosed.

[Sirdowski]

I dont think theres any question that Aurora and VT would not pass a simple psych eval, when listening to people around them they usually described them as "weird" or an "outcast", which is all id be trying to eliminate. no different than the background check already looking for mentally ill or insane, its just checking to see if they are but undiagnosed.

Good luck trying to spot the sociopaths. The majority of them are extremely well adjusted and you would not be able to expose them. And they're just as lethal as any psychopath.

[HoustonRaven]

Good luck trying to spot the sociopaths. The majority of them are extremely well adjusted and you would not be able to expose them. And they're just as lethal as any psychopath.

[Sirdowski]

A real scare to those who want to control humanity: It's believed that 1 in 25 people in the world are sociopaths. People who are by definition uncontrollable.

That's 1 in 25 people who are incapable of feeling guilt, shame, or empathy, and chances are you'll never know who they are. They are masters of charm and deception. Makes you wonder how many politicians are sociopaths.... Seriously.

So let those who want to legally obtain weapons obtain them with little limitation. There's nothing to the government could ever do to stop those who want to do harm. They are deranged but calculating, if there is a will they will find a way. Taking guns out of our hands only makes us vulnerable to those who can and will harm us by any means necessary. Even without the help of guns.

[HoustonRaven]

Well said Sir, and reminds me of an old but favorite of mine ....

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society. But, a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat – it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier, works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply would not work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation–and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act. —MK

[JAB1985]

I feel like you all are still screaming "dont take our guns" and thats not the end result or intention of anything I said.

Sociopaths get diagnosed by... a psych eval just like any other psychological problem. There is no 100% full proof method that will get every insane or harmful person (and im not naive enough to say there is) but theres no question more would be stopped in that case than if you just "allow everyone to get a gun".

why do Police have to pass a Psych Eval but the common gun owner doesnt? to me its giving the same power without the proper screening.

[Sirdowski]

Well said Sir, and reminds me of an old but favorite of mine ....

You can't really phrase it any better than that article.

It really is a simple issue that is unnecessarily made out to be otherwise because of emotion and stereotypes. But what else is new.

[Sirdowski]

I feel like you all are still screaming "dont take our guns" and thats not the end result or intention of anything I said.

Sociopaths get diagnosed by... a psych eval just like any other psychological problem. There is no 100% full proof method that will get every insane or harmful person (and im not naive enough to say there is) but theres no question more would be stopped in that case than if you just "allow everyone to get a gun".

why do Police have to pass a Psych Eval but the common gun owner doesnt? to me its giving the same power without the proper screening.

If someone wants a gun, even if those reasons aren't malicious for wanting it, they will hide whatever they need to to pass the psych evaluation, because they want a gun. Frankly, the only people who wouldn't realize what not to say are mentally challenged people who I imagine have limitations against getting a gun anyhow.

There would have to be some sort of appeal process anyways, and whatever the person may have said wrong they would adjust with some BS reason as to why.

The psych may stop a few people here and there, but evaluation process would never be successful enough to be able to justify itself. In the end it would be too arbitrary and litigious.

[NCRAVEN]

I feel like you all are still screaming "dont take our guns" and thats not the end result or intention of anything I said.

Sociopaths get diagnosed by... a psych eval just like any other psychological problem. There is no 100% full proof method that will get every insane or harmful person (and im not naive enough to say there is) but theres no question more would be stopped in that case than if you just "allow everyone to get a gun".

why do Police have to pass a Psych Eval but the common gun owner doesnt? to me its giving the same power without the proper screening.

Short of locking someone up who fails a psych eval, there is no way to stop someone from doing harm to others. You've agreed people who can not obtain one legal whether criminal/ mentally unfit or what have you, will either get a gun or use something else.

Seeing how the average 911 response time is 23 minutes, the best option is to not make citizens jump through more hoops to arm themselves.

[JAB1985]

Even though we clearly all feel you should be able to get whatever gun you want, this is obviously something were not going to agree upon. I wont ever think "every one get a gun" is the right mind set, just because criminals will always get guns and police dont respond quick enough.

you guys asked for a system that focuses on the person and not the tool but dont want to be burdened by getting looked into as a person. its a little hypocritical sounding to me, and i can understand it, as you all just want your gun with as much ease as possible (because your not whats being screened for in the first place), but I dont think that means its whats best for everyone.

at the end of the day, good debate even though we disagree. Hope santa claus brings you all as many guns as you can carry... safely.

[NCRAVEN]

I wont ever think "every one get a gun" is the right mind set, just because criminals will always get guns and police dont respond quick enough.

While this has been a good discussion, it would be easier if you did not put words in my mouth. I didn't say what was quoted above. I said "Seeing how the average 911 response time is 23 minutes, the best option is to not make citizens jump through more hoops to arm themselves."

you guys asked for a system that focuses on the person and not the tool but dont want to be burdened by getting looked into as a person. its a little hypocritical sounding to me, and i can understand it, as you all just want your gun with as much ease as possible (because your not whats being screened for in the first place), but I dont think that means its whats best for everyone.

No, us guys did not. That was Houston's point. And Houston's point is that what you want is in the majority of cases is already being done. My point is more hoops aren't going to stop the people you don't want to have guns from having them. It's like you'd like it as a law, all the while admitting it won't be effective in stopping the people who shouldn't have guns from getting them - which just makes it harder for the regular dude to get them

at the end of the day, good debate even though we disagree. Hope santa claus brings you all as many guns as you can carry... safely.

[Sirdowski]

Nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree. I choose to believe between government legislation and personal responsibility, the latter is the lesser of two evils, because the former only offers the illusion of safety with the cost of control.


Civil and respectful is definitely the way to go. Thanks, Jab.

[JAB1985]

While this has been a good discussion, it would be easier if you did not put words in my mouth. I didn't say what was quoted above. I said "Seeing how the average 911 response time is 23 minutes, the best option is to not make citizens jump through more hoops to arm themselves."

correction noted and i do realize you dont want more which i stated earlier, more a generalized comment summing different opinions up.

No, us guys did not. That was Houston's point. And Houston's point is that what you want is in the majority of cases is already being done. My point is more hoops aren't going to stop the people you don't want to have guns from having them. It's like you'd like it as a law, all the while admitting it won't be effective in stopping the people who shouldn't have guns from getting them - which just makes it harder for the regular dude to get them

again summarization only. we still disagree on who the laws are for. saying it wont stop all, ill admit, but not stop any is something i just dont believe to be true.

Nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree. I choose to believe between government legislation and personal responsibility, the latter is the lesser of two evils, because the former only offers the illusion of safety with the cost of control.

Normally id agree with you, certain things i just feel the government should, this being one of them.

[NCRAVEN]

Nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree. I choose to believe between government legislation and personal responsibility, the latter is the lesser of two evils, because the former only offers the illusion of safety with the cost of control.

Civil and respectful is definitely the way to go. Thanks, Jab.

[NCRAVEN]

correction noted and i do realize you dont want more which i stated earlier, more a generalized comment summing different opinions up.
.

It's all good, I know what I typed came of snarky, that was not the intention..

[Sirdowski]

Haha. First time I've seen that one.

[HoustonRaven]

Oregon shooter was "quite normal", according to friends and his ex, and stole the gun he used.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=17946938

[JAB1985]

Oregon shooter was "quite normal", according to friends and his ex, and stole the gun he used.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=17946938

I dont see where his friends say anything about him being normal, just the ex gf, who seems to be in denial based on the below quote. Seems she was just the one that wanted to talk the most on record.

and began to seem "numb" to those closest to him.

they "assume" its a stolen gun, but its still early in the process. If it was stolen id say the owner was irresponsible for not having it locked up properly, which still supports my thought that some people shouldnt own guns. Be interesting to hear what comes of it, but again, going by the fact that he upped and sold all his shit and wanted to move for no reason other than getting away and became "numb" to his closest friends pretty much screams issues. In this case, if it was stolen, obviously a psych eval wouldnt have done anything, which i already said wouldnt be 100% effective. Unless his friends and family got him help before hand, which is another issue with mentally disordered, this is one of those cases that happens regardless.

[wickedsolo]

You can't really phrase it any better than that article.

It really is a simple issue that is unnecessarily made out to be otherwise because of emotion and stereotypes. But what else is new.

I agree and as others have pointed out in this thread, it doesn't matter what control or lack of control you implement on guns. Folks who are going to go off the deep end are going to do it regardless of whether or not they have a gun. It isn't like someone just buys a gun and then all of a sudden devises a plan for doing bodily harm to a large number of people. They could accomplish that with a car, a baseball bat, household kitchen knives, etc.

[GOTA]

I just wish someone else besides the murderer had a gun in Newtown today. How sick do you have to be to murder 5 years olds?