Guns

Talking about everything except TPL!
User avatar
tuck815
council
council
Posts: 3436
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:48 pm
Runescape Name: tuck815
Custom Title: BEAST
Location: in front of the computer

Re: Guns

Post by tuck815 » Wed Dec 26, 2012 5:24 pm

I think when you go for a check up with your doctor you also should have to take a small mental health exam
-DAVID (tuck815)
Image
Just lift.

Ged
Retired Members
Retired Members
Posts: 895
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 7:14 pm
Runescape Name: Gedonmylevel
Custom Title: Captain Badass
Location: AUSTIN

Re: Guns

Post by Ged » Wed Dec 26, 2012 5:38 pm

Sorry I haven't posted, things just got hectic with the holidays.

I do think that the right to bear arms ought to be protected. However, there needs to be greater reform. The US collects some of the lowest taxes compared to many other countries, and if more funds are needed for reform then it ought to be collected. However, I don't think this is the case. Many countries have lowered crime rates with far less money than what the United States spends.

I think society ought to take more responsibility for each other and be accountable for one another. Recidivism is one of the largest problems, and as Blind said the majority of first offenders will commit a crime again. One issue is that there is little to no opportunity for ex-criminals. There needs to be programs to introduce criminals back into society, parole has clearly proven ineffective, as we saw in the case of the NY shootings of firefighters. Someone that has a job, will most likely not have the opportunity to commit a crime. A program that helps to hire convict and transition them into society would help. Take them out of prison a few days a week or month and put them to work, and may perhaps be rewarded with many things like reduced sentence, a monetary package at end of sentence, or more recreational freedom in prison.

Additionally, I see a greater need for openness to mental illness. Many do not seek the help they need, and it may often be difficult to notice. People need to be accountable for each other, if you see a problem with someone, you cannot let the individual keep going through life with the problem. Help needs to be made available for those who really need it. I don't know how to reach out, but there ought to be more of it, and greater social acceptance of the mentally ill.

Now, the mother of the Newtown killer, who lived a good neighborhood, owned a number of weapons: .223 Bushmaster semi-automatic assault rifle,
a Glock,
and Sig Sauer pistol.
This poses a problem. I don't have a problem with owning weapons as long as you keep them secure. However, her son had no problem obtaining the weapons from her. If your going to own military grade weapons, then you need to keep them safely locked where no one other than the person licensed may obtain them. Military grade weapons should also be more regulated. The constitution does allow Americans the right to bear arms but not everyone ought to be able to bear arms, as some may have intent to harm society. Stronger regulations on obtaining a weapon need to be put in place. Today, I could drive to a store in Texas, show them my ID and I would be able to buy a number of weapons. I don't need a license, and only need one if I plan to carry a concealed weapon. There is no instance requiring the use of civilian automatic weapons. Why does someone need to discharge several lethal bullets at something? Protection from guns can simply be accomplished through a 9MM or other types of weapons like taser guns. I'm not saying weapons should be banned by any means but that often there is little need. I'd rather have a gun that shoots knockout gas! Yes, the one from the Green Hornet would be perfect!

However none of this would be a problem if the intent of the weapons was not to harm others. But, regulating this is near impossible as you cannot know what someone is thinking. Education can help. Few people do not have proper educations of weapons on handling them properly - I'm sure that this is not always the case though.

Lastly, I can't help but think that there should be greater measures to protect people. Airport security is so heavily restricted for just that purpose: safety. Elementary school need to be on complete lockdown during school hours. The exceptions are deliveries or early pickups which all may be handled at the front desk. Unfortunately, this would not have helped the fire men, only the kids at the school shooting. The man that brutally killed his grandmother should not have been released from prison after 17 years. If a life costs 17 years, then thats a problem. Taking a life, deserves life, except for a few instances which may be handled on a case-by-case basis.

These are just a few thoughts, but society needs reform. There is no one simple solution, so everyone should try and work together to find out what will help solve the solution by changing many things.


EDIT: On your idea Tuck, I think a psych evaluation could help, especially if a basic check-up includes a mental check if a person is depressed, or feeling things out of the ordinary. It should absolutely be a part of a basic checkup, and if the doctor sees a problem then the doctor can send you to get help. But, there is no certainty unfortunately, but this procedure would help and may only require a few more minutes of questions.

TL;DR
nocliffnotes4u
Image

Fmichael
Retired Members
Retired Members
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:59 pm
Runescape Name: Fmichael
Custom Title: The Hottest Tpl'er
Location: Quebec, Canada
Contact:

Re: Guns

Post by Fmichael » Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:18 pm

Ged wrote:Sorry I haven't posted, things just got hectic with the holidays.

I do think that the right to bear arms ought to be protected. However, there needs to be greater reform. The US collects some of the lowest taxes compared to many other countries, and if more funds are needed for reform then it ought to be collected. However, I don't think this is the case. Many countries have lowered crime rates with far less money than what the United States spends.

Military spending is some of the highest of any country... Why is there a focus on military over your own countries internal affairs (as well as spying on your own citizens)? Crime rates are a result of many factors but I do think that guns certainly do not help the ease in which you are able to commit a crime.

I think society ought to take more responsibility for each other and be accountable for one another. Recidivism is one of the largest problems, and as Blind said the majority of first offenders will commit a crime again. One issue is that there is little to no opportunity for ex-criminals. There needs to be programs to introduce criminals back into society, parole has clearly proven ineffective, as we saw in the case of the NY shootings of firefighters. Someone that has a job, will most likely not have the opportunity to commit a crime. A program that helps to hire convict and transition them into society would help. Take them out of prison a few days a week or month and put them to work, and may perhaps be rewarded with many things like reduced sentence, a monetary package at end of sentence, or more recreational freedom in prison.

This matter is difficult. The differentiation between a convict and someone with a mental illness might help with regard to repeat offenders being found and treated. There are already programs to put ex-convicts to work but sometimes it works great but sometimes it does not. It really depends on the person

Additionally, I see a greater need for openness to mental illness. Many do not seek the help they need, and it may often be difficult to notice. People need to be accountable for each other, if you see a problem with someone, you cannot let the individual keep going through life with the problem. Help needs to be made available for those who really need it. I don't know how to reach out, but there ought to be more of it, and greater social acceptance of the mentally ill.

A support system needs to be there for people. In many cases when someone is found to have a problem friends and even members of their family drift away and don't want to deal with it leaving that person to fend for themselves. An example is when someone is arrested and is recently released are they simply thrown out on the street or are they taken care of by a support system. Many times they are simply thrown out on the streets. If that person had the responsibility of taking medicine and they are on their own that medicine will not be taken for whatever reason or will be replaced by a "street medicine".

Now, the mother of the Newtown killer, who lived a good neighborhood, owned a number of weapons: .223 Bushmaster semi-automatic assault rifle,
a Glock,
and Sig Sauer pistol.
This poses a problem. I don't have a problem with owning weapons as long as you keep them secure. However, her son had no problem obtaining the weapons from her. If your going to own military grade weapons, then you need to keep them safely locked where no one other than the person licensed may obtain them. Military grade weapons should also be more regulated. The constitution does allow Americans the right to bear arms but not everyone ought to be able to bear arms, as some may have intent to harm society. Stronger regulations on obtaining a weapon need to be put in place. Today, I could drive to a store in Texas, show them my ID and I would be able to buy a number of weapons. I don't need a license, and only need one if I plan to carry a concealed weapon. There is no instance requiring the use of civilian automatic weapons. Why does someone need to discharge several lethal bullets at something? Protection from guns can simply be accomplished through a 9MM or other types of weapons like taser guns. I'm not saying weapons should be banned by any means but that often there is little need. I'd rather have a gun that shoots knockout gas! Yes, the one from the Green Hornet would be perfect!

Military grade weapons SHOULD not be available to the average citizen. What use do they have? Greater protection against someone? Look at other countries, families do not have guns in all their houses yet they seem to do fine. Thieves are not looking to KILL you when they break into your house, they gain nothing from that, they simply want your possessions and that is what insurance is for. Most of the time when someone is injured or killed in a robbery it is when they try to fight back. Why fight back? Just get your insurance to cover it, and if you don't have any, is it really worth your physical well-being to protect that TV? Honestly unless the whole ideology of guns changes in the USA people will not understand that point. That you don't need weapons in every house hold. As for non military grade weapons I only see a point for them if they are being used to hunt (not trophy, but actual food) or for sport (not at live targets). Why else do you need a weapon that is designed to kill people. You are not on the brink of war, every citizen does not need a weapon to defend themselves from the "british invasion"

However none of this would be a problem if the intent of the weapons was not to harm others. But, regulating this is near impossible as you cannot know what someone is thinking. Education can help. Few people do not have proper educations of weapons on handling them properly - I'm sure that this is not always the case though.

Lastly, I can't help but think that there should be greater measures to protect people. Airport security is so heavily restricted for just that purpose: safety. Elementary school need to be on complete lockdown during school hours. The exceptions are deliveries or early pickups which all may be handled at the front desk. Unfortunately, this would not have helped the fire men, only the kids at the school shooting. The man that brutally killed his grandmother should not have been released from prison after 17 years. If a life costs 17 years, then thats a problem. Taking a life, deserves life, except for a few instances which may be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Schools can do all they can to protect their students but apart from surrounding the school in a solid forcefield there will always be ways for someone to get in without permission. Remember that at this last shooting he was not let in by anyone, he forced his way in. As well as the fact that if a school is in a complete lockdown, and/if there are security guards everywhere, is that really an atmosphere of learning? Generally a school is already locked completely and the only way in is to announce yourself at the front door and the secretary will buzz you in if they allow it. I don't see what the next step is in a "complete lockdown". Sentences of criminals are extremely subjective to the country in which they are in. I agree that murder should be life in prison. But I hope that no one suggests death penalty.

These are just a few thoughts, but society needs reform. There is no one simple solution, so everyone should try and work together to find out what will help solve the solution by changing many things.

EDIT: On your idea Tuck, I think a psych evaluation could help, especially if a basic check-up includes a mental check if a person is depressed, or feeling things out of the ordinary. It should absolutely be a part of a basic checkup, and if the doctor sees a problem then the doctor can send you to get help. But, there is no certainty unfortunately, but this procedure would help and may only require a few more minutes of questions.

The whole medicine system in the USA should change. Doctors visits should not cost money, people who are on the lower end of the financial world will think twice before getting even a basic checkup, regardless of how they are feeling. If a visit to the doctor is ever free then perhaps a very simple psych eval could be useful but until it doesn't cost money I see no point in even including it.

TL;DR
nocliffnotes4u



Responses in bold inside quote.
Image

blind
Retired Members
Retired Members
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 11:50 pm
Runescape Name: blindd
Custom Title: raw trout
Location: Detroit, MI

Re: Guns

Post by blind » Wed Dec 26, 2012 7:04 pm

[quote="Fmichael"][quote="Ged"]Sorry I haven't posted, things just got hectic with the holidays.

Military grade weapons SHOULD not be available to the average citizen. What use do they have? Greater protection against someone? Look at other countries, families do not have guns in all their houses yet they seem to do fine. Thieves are not looking to KILL you when they break into your house, they gain nothing from that, they simply want your possessions and that is what insurance is for. Most of the time when someone is injured or killed in a robbery it is when they try to fight back. Why fight back? Just get your insurance to cover it, and if you don't have any, is it really worth your physical well-being to protect that TV? Honestly unless the whole ideology of guns changes in the USA people will not understand that point. That you don't need weapons in every house hold. As for non military grade weapons I only see a point for them if they are being used to hunt (not trophy, but actual food) or for sport (not at live targets). Why else do you need a weapon that is designed to kill people. You are not on the brink of war, every citizen does not need a weapon to defend themselves from the "british invasion"


Military grade weapons are not available to the public. You can buy "assault rifles" but only with semi automatic receivers, fully automatic guns are illegal. Making them no different than any sporting rifle with a high capacity clip which are also illegal in many states. Also it is ILLEGAL to defend your property or yourself with a rifle (at least in michigan). Also if you defend yourself with lethal force you must be able to prove that you had no alternative (escape) and that you had reason to fear for your life. Shooting a burglar (at least in michigan) taking your tv is a good way to wind up in prison.

i must also note that certain terrible states that shall remain nameless TEXAS TEXAS TEXAS TEXAS TEXAS have castle doctrine that allow you to shoot pretty much anyone on your property you don't want there. Texas sucks.
"Shoot out the lights"

Ged
Retired Members
Retired Members
Posts: 895
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 7:14 pm
Runescape Name: Gedonmylevel
Custom Title: Captain Badass
Location: AUSTIN

Re: Guns

Post by Ged » Wed Dec 26, 2012 7:16 pm

Military spending is some of the highest of any country... Why is there a focus on military over your own countries internal affairs (as well as spying on your own citizens)? Crime rates are a result of many factors but I do think that guns certainly do not help the ease in which you are able to commit a crime.

In fact, we have the highest military spending. In 2011 it was close to $700B dollars. However, we have already declared withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan and most forces will be out by 2014. This should reduce the expenditure. Military has such a heavy focus because its a way for America to maintain its authority. Many allies want to have America on their side because of its military. It's also a form of deterrence for other countries seeking to attack America or her allies. The defense budget will almost always maintain its status quo, in America's effort to maintain global military might.

Guns do contribute to crime, but a gun is only as capable as its bearer. Knives can do just as much damage, and that was demonstrated in China. A knife is far more easily obtained, and can cause just as much injury. But, a car can do just this if someone goes on a hit-and-run. The factors are simply to great to focus on just one.

A support system needs to be there for people. In many cases when someone is found to have a problem friends and even members of their family drift away and don't want to deal with it leaving that person to fend for themselves. An example is when someone is arrested and is recently released are they simply thrown out on the street or are they taken care of by a support system. Many times they are simply thrown out on the streets. If that person had the responsibility of taking medicine and they are on their own that medicine will not be taken for whatever reason or will be replaced by a "street medicine".

Absolutely I agree, there needs to be a program to reach out to these people. Society needs to have its openness and give people the help they need, instead of as you said, throwing out the person who is clearly in need of help.

Military grade weapons SHOULD not be available to the average citizen. What use do they have? Greater protection against someone? Look at other countries, families do not have guns in all their houses yet they seem to do fine. Thieves are not looking to KILL you when they break into your house, they gain nothing from that, they simply want your possessions and that is what insurance is for. Most of the time when someone is injured or killed in a robbery it is when they try to fight back. Why fight back? Just get your insurance to cover it, and if you don't have any, is it really worth your physical well-being to protect that TV? Honestly unless the whole ideology of guns changes in the USA people will not understand that point. That you don't need weapons in every house hold. As for non military grade weapons I only see a point for them if they are being used to hunt (not trophy, but actual food) or for sport (not at live targets). Why else do you need a weapon that is designed to kill people. You are not on the brink of war, every citizen does not need a weapon to defend themselves from the "british invasion"


The 2nd amendment will always protect the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms was necessary when the constitution was drafted. The right to bear arms was necessary for the following reasons:

1. deterring tyrannical government
2. repelling invasion;
3. suppressing insurrection;
4. facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
5. participating in law enforcement;
6. enabling the people to organize a militia system

Some of these reasons still apply today. There may not be direct military conflict with our government or other governments, but the 2nd amendment exists to ensure this. If the government turns on its people, or some other extreme circumstance, then the people have the right to organize a militia to reinstate the values of freedom. It is also a right to self-defense here. People may not like it, but its there, and while it may allow people to do bad things, it also guarantees protection from the reasons listed above, and should America ever turn against the people, the 2nd amendment will allow those people to defend their freedom - otherwise a government could use military force to crush insurrection that would otherwise be defended through the right to bear arms.
Also, when thieves break in, it isn't the intention to kill them either. Guns are simply there to deter them or protect a threatened family. You have a right to defend what is yours, and a police car cannot be stationed outside every home. If someone breaks into my home, I would use any means necessary to protect myself or my family, but I would not use deadly force unless they provoked it, which is often not the case. Otherwise the gun is enough to scare them off. Weapons can be used for hunting or for sport, but they also serve other purposes, primarily the right for someone to defend themselves. You cannot always rely on the police to come in and save the day, often times things happen in a matter of seconds, and I would rather make sure my family is safe if someone were to invade with the intent of causing harm.
The shooter illegally obtained the weapons. They should have been locked away where no one could have had access, not even her son. He was too young to have a weapon of his own, so other than stealing them, which he did, there was no other way for him to obtain them. People who are going to own those weapons, need to have them properly locked away.
Schools can do all they can to protect their students but apart from surrounding the school in a solid forcefield there will always be ways for someone to get in without permission. Remember that at this last shooting he was not let in by anyone, he forced his way in. As well as the fact that if a school is in a complete lockdown, and/if there are security guards everywhere, is that really an atmosphere of learning? Generally a school is already locked completely and the only way in is to announce yourself at the front door and the secretary will buzz you in if they allow it. I don't see what the next step is in a "complete lockdown". Sentences of criminals are extremely subjective to the country in which they are in. I agree that murder should be life in prison. But I hope that no one suggests death penalty.

I'm not suggesting security guards, and perhaps lockdown was the wrong word choice. The school I went to sealed off the school facilities from the outside world. Anyone is welcome to enter through the front door, but no one is allowed beyond that point. Sure, you can forcibly enter, but an alarm would have been given and all the doors would have locked down, doors strong enough to contain twenty minutes of fire, not easily gunned down. Of course they are designed to contain fires, but they are strong enough to hold off intrusion until students can be taken somewhere safe. All classroom doors are very strong, even the glass is layered with metal in most classrooms (not the windows).

The whole medicine system in the USA should change. Doctors visits should not cost money, people who are on the lower end of the financial world will think twice before getting even a basic checkup, regardless of how they are feeling. If a visit to the doctor is ever free then perhaps a very simple psych eval could be useful but until it doesn't cost money I see no point in even including it.

The majority of americans are insured as it is. The government provides insurance for low income families, this is called Medicaid. This program also covers children and those with disability. Some states even provide complete health insurance, one such example is Massachusetts. Additionally, medicare covers anyone over the age of 65. Many companies also offer insurance. There is 50.7M uninsured of the 307M, which will no longer be so after Obamacare is fully phased by 2014.

Theres many things that need to be done in order to fix violence within a society. More often than not, opportunity = crime. Someone that has an 8-5 job with decent wages, does not have the same opportunity to commit a crime than someone who has nothing to do all day and is living on a stipend.
Simply put: theres a ton to consider!

EDIT: @Aaron:
Sorry, I was not using the correct term when referring to "military grade." I was referring to all Class 2 and lower weapons.
Texas does not have to be horrible because of its laws. There would be no one to shoot if they did not break in, in the first place. Perhaps its not where I live, but we don't have crazy people shooting burglars all the time, at the very least its a form of deterrence, and if provoked you can shoot the intruder. If the law said you could not, do you wait for the rapist to rape you and then call the police? You need to be able to protect yourself in your own home, it is your home after all, and they are intruding. If you can scare them off without shooting then that should be done, but if they provoke a response then its different. Texas has the same laws as most other states found here:
http://www.self-defender.net/law3.htm
If they run, you cannot shoot, if they back down you cannot shoot. Only if you are provoked and feel your life or someone else's is threatened, then you can shoot.
EDIT2: The castle doctrine has the following provisions:
must believe that the intruder intends to do serious harm
must believe that the intruder intends to commit a felony
must not have provoked the intruder or threat of harm
may be protecting himself or any other within the residence
may need to announce his presence and intention to retaliate
The entire code is found here: http://www.rc123.com/texas_castle_doctrine.html
Image

Post Reply