The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

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

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

1) polygraph tests are completely useless at anything besides getting people to confess shit

2) everyone in america having their records accessed or being questioned by police is INNOCENT until conviction

― and what, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:31 (nineteen years ago)

I still haven't seen any statistics on the number of gun-related deaths caused by mentally unstable people.

Err, isn't – excepting immediate and inarguable self defense / accidental firing – the act of pointing a gun at somebody and pulling the trigger an unstable act?

― remy bean, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:33 (nineteen years ago)

Any, John J, sure there's going to be some dead-enders who stockpile gunpowder and bullets and so on in airtight, temperature controlled chambers so that when the One World Government comes to stamp the Number of the Beast on their foreheads they'll be ready to stop it like true red-blooded patriots. No solution is going to get rid of every single gun- but it doesn't have to to make a difference for the better.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:34 (nineteen years ago)

Dude, tons of people reload and really wouldn't enjoy being characterized that way, and they'd be completely right.

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:35 (nineteen years ago)

1) polygraph tests are completely useless at anything besides getting people to confess shit

Such as whether they might be purchasing the gun with the intent of killing scores of innocent people?

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:36 (nineteen years ago)

o. nate, there are also people who shoot a lot (for fun) and want to keep costs down. Buying primers in the thousands at a time isn't unheard of.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:36 (nineteen years ago)

Err, isn't – excepting immediate and inarguable self defense / accidental firing – the act of pointing a gun at somebody and pulling the trigger an unstable act?

The contortions involved there aren't even worth responding to.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:36 (nineteen years ago)

I'm not talking about everyone who reloads, I'm talking about the people in John's scenario who would refuse to be psychologically screened and would stockpile their (illegal) guns.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:36 (nineteen years ago)

oh great now there's some shooting thing goin on at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:37 (nineteen years ago)

Oh boy. How about ammonia, nate? Can I still buy that without turning my head and coughing? Robitussin? How about that? Do I need to submit to fingerprinting for that?

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:37 (nineteen years ago)

I'm not talking about everyone who reloads, I'm talking about the people in John's scenario who would refuse to be psychologically screened and would stockpile their (illegal) guns.

-- o. nate, Friday, April 20, 2007 2:36 PM (50 seconds ago)

WHAT?

You know, the thing that's making this whole thread particularly irritating is that a bunch of people keep presenting uninformed "Hmmm, I think this might be true" data as facts.

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:38 (nineteen years ago)

I mean, I realize that the factual statement "Many people buy thousands of primers at a time" is inconvenient for you, but it's still true.

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:40 (nineteen years ago)

"Any, John J, sure there's going to be some dead-enders who stockpile gunpowder and bullets and so on in airtight, temperature controlled chambers so that when the One World Government comes to stamp the Number of the Beast on their foreheads they'll be ready to stop it like true red-blooded patriots."

You have a lot of strange ass ideas, man. Where do you come up with this shit?

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:40 (nineteen years ago)

Why are proposing legislating psychological profiling? Have we investigated whether this is actually a significant problem in need of a solution.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:40 (nineteen years ago)

"You know, the thing that's making this whole thread particularly irritating is that a bunch of people keep presenting uninformed "Hmmm, I think this might be true" data as facts."

This is by far the most sensible thing NOT said by me on this entire thread.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:41 (nineteen years ago)

I've tried to avoid speculative generalizations myself - I think the only generalization I've made was about the rarity of people committing mass murder/violent crimes with really old outdated guns

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:42 (nineteen years ago)

Oh boy. How about ammonia, nate? Can I still buy that without turning my head and coughing? Robitussin? How about that? Do I need to submit to fingerprinting for that?

Obviously guns are quite different in their potential for harm from those things. The idea is to make it harder for the occasional nut job to carry out his murderous fantasy. Guns are by far the easiest way for people to do go on these kinds of rampages, hence why they are so often used for that purpose. Obviously there are other ways people can carry out mass murder - the 9/11 hijackers only needed box cutters to kill thousands - but those incidents are extremely rare, because of the difficulty involved.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:42 (nineteen years ago)

o. nate, what you don't seem to be taking into account is that VT-like incidents are themselves "extremely rare" - in terms of overall population, prevalence of firearms and their use.

Which then goes to what Fluffy and I've been requesting - hard numbers on the amount of gun violence related to mental instability/illness/etc..

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:44 (nineteen years ago)

I mean, I realize that the factual statement "Many people buy thousands of primers at a time" is inconvenient for you, but it's still true.

Somewhere this train got onto the wrong track. I never meant to imply anything about people who buy primers in bulk. I'm talking about a potential group of people in a possible future scenario that obviously I didn't communicate very well in this thread. Never mind - it's not important. The important point I'm trying to make is that the legacy gun problem will shrink over time.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:45 (nineteen years ago)

Uninformed non-factual things like Roger thinking he can still buy OTC cough medicine without having to sign in a little book if it has any ephedrine in it. :(

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:49 (nineteen years ago)

xpost Good luck with that, partner.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:50 (nineteen years ago)

No solution is going to get rid of every single gun- but it doesn't have to to make a difference for the better.

Wait, I thought you just wanted to keep guns out of the hands of crazies.

Guns are by far the easiest way for people to do go on these kinds of rampages

So why do Palestinians often use bombs instead of guns?

― Kerm, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:51 (nineteen years ago)

You can get high as hell on Robitussin DM. That's a fact. I can walk into Duane Reade right now and buy a gallon of the shit.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:51 (nineteen years ago)

All of the violence I have seen in my life firsthand thus far has not involved guns.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:52 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, but you live in a world where you can break seven dudes' noses in a Hulk-style group fight, so getting all Steven Seagal Zen-wisdom on us isn't very enlightening.

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:54 (nineteen years ago)

The important point I'm trying to make is that the legacy gun problem will shrink over time.

this is my thinking too - moving forward make new weapons more difficult to purchase/restrict their manufacture etc., and let time and inconvenience reduce the problem of the guns already in circulation.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:54 (nineteen years ago)

No solution is going to get rid of every single gun- but it doesn't have to to make a difference for the better.

Wait, I thought you just wanted to keep guns out of the hands of crazies.

Guns are by far the easiest way for people to do go on these kinds of rampages

So why do Palestinians often use bombs instead of guns?

Obviously Palestine is very different situation to the US, in terms of what materials are available as well as whether you are dealing with a highly-skilled terrorist organization or a lone nut.

Sorry, I left out the word "unlicensed" above. The sentence should have read: "No solution is going to get rid of every single unlicensed gun."

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:55 (nineteen years ago)

Wait, I thought you just wanted to keep guns out of the hands of crazies.

I'm not proposing any gun control past what exists now (except I might make concealed-carry a national program so that every state has equally stringent checks - some states are looser now).

I'm saying that the only effective method of control, if you wanted to pursue one, is to eliminate them as completely as possible. All the mental-health checks and bans on scary-looking guns in the world aren't going to solve anything.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:58 (nineteen years ago)

oh wait, that wasn't directed at me. I misread what you quoted.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:58 (nineteen years ago)

I'm pretty sure there are a lot of guns available in Palestine. I'm also pretty sure there's a lot of explosive-making material in the US.

xposts

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:00 (nineteen years ago)

nah, not an AK-47 to be found in Palestine.

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

I'm also pretty sure there's a lot of explosive-making material in the US

If you don't see any difference in difficulty between what it takes to buy a gun in this country vs. to find someone willing to sell you high explosives, and to have the know-how to fashion it into an effective bomb, then you are living in a different world than I am.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:02 (nineteen years ago)

Palestinian terrorists use bombs because they have a good bomb-making infrastructure, you're saying?

So the idea is that they're more fanatical than crazy, which makes them more determined than most random American crazies, so if you took guns away from americans, the crazies would just not bother instead of learning how to make bombs?

― Kerm, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:02 (nineteen years ago)

A lot of crazies wouldn't. Yes, that is what I'm saying.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:04 (nineteen years ago)

OH MY GOD SERIOUSLY STOP DOING THIS.

Have you heard of these strange "fertilizers" the arms merchants are selling? Often right in the middle of the heartland of the USA?

xpost

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:04 (nineteen years ago)

Or they might try - and fail, or get caught.

xpost

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

Or perhaps this new fangled liquid death machine called "kerosene in an enclosed container"?

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:05 (nineteen years ago)

I'm just strolling through o.nate's reasoning, John. Making sure I follow it.

I think he has a flashier concept of what it takes to make an effective bomb than bombers do.

― Kerm, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:07 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/images/smilies/new6-05/jackoff.gif http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/images/smilies/new6-05/jackoff.gif http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/images/smilies/new6-05/jackoff.gif http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/images/smilies/new6-05/jackoff.gif http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/images/smilies/new6-05/jackoff.gif http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/images/smilies/new6-05/jackoff.gif http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/images/smilies/new6-05/jackoff.gif http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/images/smilies/new6-05/jackoff.gif

― félix pié, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:08 (nineteen years ago)

Weren't 20-something people killed at the Olympics by a bomb that consisted of low-grade explosives plus NAILS?

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

many, many, xposts.

Here is a section of an article written in 2002 about the reason it is so difficult to find information on the mentally ill and firearms:

Title: Guns and the mentally ill., By: Cannon, Angie, U.S. News & World Report, 00415537, 4/1/2002, Vol. 132, Issue 10
Database: Academic Search Premier

Records gap. The FBI's database currently contains records for about 89,570 people who should be prohibited from buying guns because of mental health problems--though the government estimates that as many as 2.6 million people have been involuntarily institutionalized in the United States. Almost all of those mental health records in the FBI database come from people who were institutionalized in federal veterans hospitals. Only six states provide mental health records to the FBI database, and they provided a total of only 41 individual records.

That frustrates the FBI. "We're constantly working with the states in an effort to get more records into our system in this category," says spokesman Steve Fischer. "In most cases, it takes legislation within respective states for that to happen. That's one reason why there has been a delay."

Very few people are denied guns because of mental illness: They account for fewer than 1 percent of all denials from Oct. 1, 2001, to mid-January, according to the FBI. About 90 percent of the denials are due to previous criminal history, while fugitives make up the next biggest group of denials, 2.8 percent. "Untold thousands of people could be slipping through the cracks," says Matthew Bennett, a spokesman for Americans for Gun Safety, a moderate gun control group. NRA lobbyist Baker says his group wants states to provide records to the background checks databases. "Every time we talk about the need for these records to be in the system, civil liberties groups come unglued," he says. "We believe those records should be in there for all prohibited groups." By whatever standard, the system falls short.

I also found an article from the New York Times (but in 1999) that stated that the majority of those who proved to be mentally ill and used a gun to cause harm, were committing suicides, not committing murders.

Just thought I'd throw that out there for you. Tis a slow day in the library.

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

Yeah, but you live in a world where you can break seven dudes' noses in a Hulk-style group fight, so getting all Steven Seagal Zen-wisdom on us isn't very enlightening.

-- nabisco, Friday, April 20, 2007 2:54 PM (11 minutes ago)

I specifically allowed for the possibility of being sent to the intensive care unit, if you read carefully. I never said I'd 'break seven dudes' noses,' I merely said I'd hit as many as I could, allowing the kid to hopefully escape getting beaten up.

Have you never been in a fight, nabisco?

Now, had these seven white kids been KILLING this little guy, or TRYING to, well....that's a very different story.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:11 (nineteen years ago)

Weren't 20-something people killed at the Olympics by a bomb that consisted of low-grade explosives plus NAILS?

-- milo z, Friday, April 20, 2007 4:08 PM (3 minutes ago)

are you talking about atlanta? 2 ppl died, 1 from a heart attack out of shock

― and what, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:12 (nineteen years ago)

plz stop with the hypothetical scenarios, they're really obnoxious and add nothing to the debate

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:13 (nineteen years ago)

yeah, Atlanta. 2 dead, 111 injured. I thought the fatalities were much higher.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:13 (nineteen years ago)

Our librarian thread has given us a little more information to go on. I'm curious about that FBI database. If I'm mentally ill, can I currently be prohibited from buying a gun?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:14 (nineteen years ago)

depends what state you're in.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:14 (nineteen years ago)

and if you've been forcibly committed (which requires that a judge find you a danger to yourself or others, I believe)

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:15 (nineteen years ago)

xpost Rog you forgot the part about the stuffing! But don't worry, dude, I was goofing on you, no need to debate it.

xpost Mostly it seems like people use bombs for impersonal political purposes (like McVeigh or suicide bombers), and use guns for personal/emotional ones, where they actually want the experience and "power" of being there, going on the rampage. I'm not sure it's worth arguing either way: the methods and impulses aren't totally interchangeable, but of course plenty of people will just skip to the next means of hurting people.

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:15 (nineteen years ago)

From the same 2002 article:

The 1968 Gun Control Act narrowly bars people from buying or possessing firearms if they have been adjudicated mentally "defective" or have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

has this changed since 2002 though? not sure.

― Caledonia, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:16 (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.