The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3246 of them)

Manalishi, many of us - o. nate is the latest - have had you bang to rights, as it were, over and over on this thread. Trolls have an uncanny ability to be completely oblivious to getting sonned, though

I don't even know where you start deciding what medical or psych conditions

milo, it's called "politics" - that's where it starts, and that's how it gets played out - sorry there's not a big conversion table somewhere, pre-fabricated to make decisions easier

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:30 (nineteen years ago)

Milo, technically that wouldn't be an "invasion" and would be something you'd submit to in order to make the purchase -- people currently have to open themselves to that kind of scrutiny in order to get sensitive government jobs, security clearances, or authority to do certain kinds of hazardous work, right?

Not saying your point isn't valid, just that it wouldn't be inventing whole new powers on the part of government -- it'd be a vast expansion of existing ones, I guess. The argument that this is a step toward background review of everything is a worthwhile one, it's true.

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:33 (nineteen years ago)

or even a step toward background review of everyone, which is even scarier

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:34 (nineteen years ago)

Hey Tracer - again, I've been here since around 2004, I think, on and off.

I can deduce that your sentence is somehow intended to insult me, but for the life of me I haven't the foggiest idea what you're trying to say. Maybe I've never heard the term "bang to rights?"

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:34 (nineteen years ago)

"just that it wouldn't be inventing whole new powers on the part of government -- it'd be a vast expansion of existing ones, I guess."

DOES NOT COMPUTE
DOES NOT COMPUTE
DOES NOT COMPUTE

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:35 (nineteen years ago)

cold hard facts made out of bullets

― RJG, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:36 (nineteen years ago)

Come again?

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:37 (nineteen years ago)

every time you think about guns, I bet

― RJG, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:38 (nineteen years ago)

Nabisco's point is good. I would imagine this new service being set up as an independent body whose only purpose in using this information would be to provide clearances to purchase fire-arms. The details of the information would not be provided to the gun dealer, only the result, which would be one of three possibilities: Approved, Denied, or Contact the Bureau of Firearm Safety for further screening. Law enforcement would need to get a warrant to request any information from these records.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:38 (nineteen years ago)

i had to sign an affadavit last night stating that i

have not been determined to be a sexual psychopath under the provisions of Article 1 (commencing with Section 6300) chapter 2, Part 2, Division 6 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or under similar provisions of law of any other state

just to be granted the privelege of attending grad school.

i don't think this part of the code includes stalking and/or domestic violence, i wonder if it should??

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:39 (nineteen years ago)

Glad you missed the point, Tracer. No shit it's politics - now how do you contain them, how do you keep personal agendas out of it? How do you keep from stigmatizing people with mild issues that could (potentially) cause harm to themselves or others? If people who might do themselves harm can be constrained from owning guns - do we need to remove them from all other possible forms of self-injury?

Nabisco, do you not see a major difference between a an invasive and extreme background check for security-sensitive jobs and for purchasing something? I've had two jobs that made me pee in a cup for weed - should we make everyone who buys a car take a drug test? (which isn't to make the absurd argument that 'cars kill too' - but those with illegal drugs in their system are presumably more prone to driving under the influence, right?).

o.nate - how is an 'independent body' any better than 'the government'? Who are they beholden to? What makes them more secure? Is there no chance that an 'independent body' can leak or misuse information? (again, Dubya overstepping boundaries to seize personal records from 'independent bodies' just like this)

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:41 (nineteen years ago)

xp - A similar question exists on the background check form for buying a gun - have you ever been forcibly committed or judged mentally ill or something along those lines.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:42 (nineteen years ago)

Sure, there's always a chance information could be leaked or misused. The job of the bureau and those who run it would be to minimize that chance. Still I'd take that risk over the risk of fire-arms being made available to unstable individuals.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:42 (nineteen years ago)

should we make everyone who buys a car take a drug test?

why not!!

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:45 (nineteen years ago)

So you think the potential to save 33 lives every six years is justification to create a system that could be abused regularly and requires that anyone who wants to own a firearm submit to an invasive background check?

I mean, what you're describing here is an instant-access system with information on your mental and physical health regularly updated. That requires that doctors transmit your info every time they see you to a central database - not just of gun buyers, but of everyone who falls under the guidelines who might potentially purchase a gun (like the current criminal database). So the 35-year old mother suffering post-partum depression goes into the database, even though she's never going to think about buying a gun.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:45 (nineteen years ago)

'twas an xpost, of course.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:45 (nineteen years ago)

OK, if it's the record-keeping part that really bothers you, then forget the detailed psychological records. They would track only the most obvious things, like criminal records and records of being placed in mental institutions (stuff they're already supposed to track), but in addition to that, anyone who wants to buy a firearm would be required to pass a psychological screening test. The test would be paid for by the required application fee.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:46 (nineteen years ago)

This thread is pushing me into the gun-rights camp, despite Manalishi.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:46 (nineteen years ago)

i'd be curious to see the number of murders committed by unstable individuals using firearms (more than 33 every six years, just maybe)

― félix pié, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:46 (nineteen years ago)

And while we're at it, there would also be a required course in gun safety.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:47 (nineteen years ago)

What does a psychological screening test cover? Who devises and judges it? How do you keep people from, you know, lying?

"Have you ever had fantasies of assaulting people you consider bullies and forcing them to beg you for mercy?"
"Uh, no. Really."

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:49 (nineteen years ago)

I think milo kind of has a point here. medical records-as-basis-for anything is a dodgy proposition. (one caveat that hasn't been brought up at all so far is the um, accuracy and reliability of medical opinion. I mean, I don't trust doctors to properly identify anything.)

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:49 (nineteen years ago)

Well, presumably, the test would be designed to work even if people were lying. Perhaps it would include a polygraph test.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:50 (nineteen years ago)

and electric shocks to the gonads

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:50 (nineteen years ago)

For an extra charge, sure, why not.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:51 (nineteen years ago)

Heh, charge.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:52 (nineteen years ago)

Once you get past the invasive method, the more serious problem with your argument is that you're not doing anything effective, just putting up hurdles because they make you feel a little better.

As I said at the start, the only feasible form of 'gun control' (past what exists now) requires that you attack manufacturers (eliminate civilian arms, period) rather than end users.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:52 (nineteen years ago)

I think it would be effective. Show me your evidence of why it wouldn't be.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:53 (nineteen years ago)

o. nate, you do realize that your system wouldn't do anything about the millions of firearms already in public hands, right?

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:54 (nineteen years ago)

yeah i dunno about this test thing anymore

i still say we should just make certain crimes *more* illegal - i mean, it works for drunk driving, right?

how about if you get caught stalking or involved in domestic abuse you have to attend night classes just like a drunk driver? and if you don't you can't ... use the internet or something.

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:54 (nineteen years ago)

o. nate, you do realize that your system wouldn't do anything about the millions of firearms already in public hands, right?

Yes, I realize that, but you've got to start somewhere. Eventually, the screening would be retro-actively applied to current licensed gun owners - or we could just wait a generation until they age off the books.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:55 (nineteen years ago)

how is checking to see somebody's not a raging pathological psychopath "invasive" ? i'm sick of libertarians deploying this word to cloud any issue where the suggestion is made that there's some governmental oversite – it's bullshit. why should we be compelled to issue firearms to people with histories of psychic disturbance? we don't give licenses to high-risk epileptics.

― remy bean, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:56 (nineteen years ago)

Dude Milo like I said, I totally agree with your concerns about privacy -- they're completely legitimate. All I said was that the government does currently screen people in similar ways, so it's not like it'd be philosophically revolutionary. Your drivers' license drug test is a funny example, because your local DMV is poking around administering medical screenings ON SITE -- they test your vision!

The issue of medical/psychological records drives those concerns home pretty well. Apart from that, though, I'm not CERTAIN intense non-medical screening would be some kind of huge scary revolutionary move. We already do cursory criminal-record checks. The government screens people not just for sensitive jobs, but for licensing to do various things, right? Repeat DMV eye-test.

So yeah, I'm agreeing with you here that there are legitimate worries to be had about all this -- I was mostly just pointing out that this wouldn't be some crazy philosophical leap from stuff government already does.

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:56 (nineteen years ago)

This isn't usually the kind of argument I'd make, fan of standardized testing that I am, but does anyone else see the slippery slope here? You're going to trust a 'system' to keep this from becoming terribly exclusionary and racist?

The problem with mandating anything like this is the inevitable trojan horse scenario, and o nate's 'system' idea would potentially open the floodgates to even more civil rights violations.

I mean, shit - polygraph tests?? For INNOCENT people? Pardon me, but fuck you.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:56 (nineteen years ago)

I think it would be effective. Show me your evidence of why it wouldn't be.

You're the proposer, hoss. Show me the number of gun deaths caused by individuals who would be adjudicated 'mentally incapable of owning a firearm' under your proposed system, and exactly what your system encompasses?

Remy, was the VT shooter ever judged to be a "raging pathological psychopath"? Were the individuals who supplied the Columbine kids?

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:57 (nineteen years ago)

I mean, shit - polygraph tests?? For INNOCENT people? Pardon me, but fuck you.

Fuck you and your gun too. If you wanted a job that required a high security clearance, you'd have to pass a polygraph test. How is applying for ownership of a deadly weapon any different in principal?

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:59 (nineteen years ago)

xpost

and how do you determine raging pathological psychopaths anyway?

that's a diagnosis that's usually made only when it's too late, like after somebody's eaten their moms liver for breakfast

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:59 (nineteen years ago)

Remy, was the VT shooter ever judged to be a "raging pathological psychopath"? Were the individuals who supplied the Columbine kids?

not to my knowledge. but that doesn't mean a massive number of other gun crime perps wouldn't be.

― remy bean, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:00 (nineteen years ago)

How many, remy?

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:01 (nineteen years ago)

Yes, I realize that, but you've got to start somewhere. Eventually, the screening would be retro-actively applied to current licensed gun owners - or we could just wait a generation until they age off the books.

-- o. nate, Friday, April 20, 2007 1:55 PM (1 minute ago)

A) How exactly would you find these people to retro-screen them, how willing would they be to voluntarily submit to this, would there be punishments enacted if you were caught unscreened, etc. etc. logistical nightmare.
B) It's going to take a lot longer than a generation, given that guns don't have a shelf life, and people are allowed to will them to their kids, because they are possessions, after all, and often worth a lot of money.

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:01 (nineteen years ago)

I think the suggestion about attacking the manufacturers/market is a better move. As Justen points out, it wouldn't affect the bazillion guns currently in circulation, but it could conceivably keep the problem from getting *worse*. Guns do age and become ineffectual, albeit over a long period of time. Perhaps it would be best to take the long view and apply legislation now that would have more concrete ramifications several generations from now.

many x-posts

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:03 (nineteen years ago)

raging pathological psychopaths was hyperbolic. i thought that much would be obvious. but the point stands: why can't the state/federal government screen high risk candidates from the purchase of guns? suicidal depressives? convicted spousal abusers? those who have been institutionalized for X number of years out of Y years. i'm precluded from giving blood because of the time i spent in England. i don't consider it "invasive" to take my medical history, i consider it prudent.

― remy bean, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:03 (nineteen years ago)

261, milo. how should i know? don't be a jerk about it.

― remy bean, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:04 (nineteen years ago)

this thread has taught me nothing except that gun collectors are giant harmless nerds who probably just like to shoot at photos of Saruman. also, maybe there should be a slightly tighter screening process on those who have already been noted as being a danger to themselves and others at some point in the recent past. at this point i don't think we can realistically do anything about the guns out there considering there millions of them out there, with probably hundreds of thousands unaccounted for by any governing body.

― félix pié, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:05 (nineteen years ago)

A) How exactly would you find these people to retro-screen them, how willing would they be to voluntarily submit to this, would there be punishments enacted if you were caught unscreened, etc. etc. logistical nightmare.
B) It's going to take a lot longer than a generation, given that guns don't have a shelf life, and people are allowed to will them to their kids, because they are possessions, after all, and often worth a lot of money.

No one's saying it would be easy. But who are we as a country if we can't face difficult challenges every once in a while?

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:05 (nineteen years ago)

I'm not calling it hard, I'm calling it impossible.

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:07 (nineteen years ago)

remy, is correct, there IS a powerful and overwhelming body of evidence that households where there is a gun and a history of domestic abuse tend to end in fatal shootings, ditto households with drug abuse

i don't know though, maybe you *already* can't get a gun if you have drug convictions or domestic abuse complaints agianst you.

so maybe instead of going for stricter gun control we could look at factors that exacerbate gun violence and work on those?

i am sure even the libertarian in roger wouldn't in theory argue with more federal + state funding for outpatient therapy for drug + domestic violence criminals?

who knows, this might be a worthier challenge than making guns illegal

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:07 (nineteen years ago)

why can't the state/federal government screen high risk candidates from the purchase of guns?

It already does. It just is not, generally speaking, as invasive as you're hoping.

Define "high risk."

convicted spousal abusers

Already on the list and denied ownership. In fact, if you get a restraining order put on you for domestic violence, the police can (rightly) confiscate your guns in the meantime.

those who have been institutionalized for X number of years out of Y years.

Can't remember if that's actually part of the background check, but it is one of the questions asked on an ATF form (and thus a federal crime to lie about).

suicidal depressives?

What other things should clinical depressives be denied? Cars? Knives? Medicines?

261, milo. how should i know? don't be a jerk about it.

I'm not being a jerk - you're throwing out that lots of gun violence is perpetrated by high-risk 'psychological' targets - I don't believe that to be the case and have yet to see anyone show that it is.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:08 (nineteen years ago)

xpost

Haha seriously, how come nobody here is getting all Nugenty over the fact that I've been issued a special second-rate license on which the government dictates that I'm not allowed to drive without my glasses on?! Why are they all up in my private myopia issues??

I'm not sure we need vastly expanded gun-purchase screening, though -- we'd do better with stricter enforcement of the types of screening we already have. (The only way criminal-history scanning fails is that a lot of the warning-sign crimes -- like threats or domestic violence -- are interpersonal crimes where people drop charges or things get plead down, and so there's no concrete record of trial and conviction.)

Hahaha Nate one of the funny truths of the gun-control conversation is that you just don't dream of taking away weapons people already own, because there is some very small wacko percentage of them who are not kidding about the cold dead hands, and they are, umm, armed. (Please do not interpret as a slur on the non-small non-wacko percentage who'd be indignant but not get all Ruby Ridge about it.)

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:08 (nineteen years ago)

glasses dont kill people nabisco, people kill people

― Mr. Que, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:09 (nineteen years ago)

Skipping 3146 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.