British Want Their Guns Back

Conspirator
Posts: 2304
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:34 pm

PostThu Jan 31, 2013 5:09 am » by Cia212


Noentry wrote:
Cia212 wrote:Not that it matters, but were they paid anything during the handgun grab?


If you are referring to the gun owners. Not a Pennie.

That's crazy! Handguns are an investment for a lot of people. My uncle has around 50 handguns worth over $75k - I'm sure some Brits had at least that many.

Even if I only had 1, I would just say it was stolen, then hide it.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2410
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:47 am

PostThu Jan 31, 2013 5:39 am » by Opalserpent


I've been researched gun laws in Australia, I do have gun clubs and I can get a rifle, yay. :) after 3 months and heaps of
paper work.
Live by the Terror, Die by the Terror.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2244
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:56 am

PostThu Jan 31, 2013 9:27 am » by Iwanci


civil liberties are there for a reason... the current issue of gun control is as much about eroding civil liberties as it is in diminishing gun ownership.. the principles and concepts are all CORRECT, the reality is by far different to the perception..

I am NOT for the erosion of our civil liberties, I believe that we are already too controlled, and I am NOT against gun ownership (I would like to own a gun), I am against guns (and any other weapon that can inflict grand scale harm) in the wrong hands, and whilst we can never prevent the 'criminal' element from getting their hands on guns (this is why they are referred to as the criminal element), surely there is something that can be done to at the very least limit the accesability of guns (and other weapons) to those is our society who are not quite criminals, but can clearly be seen to be of lesser mental capacity than the 'norm'.

For me it is NOT about eliminating gun crime (that will never happen), it is about limiting the carnage..

Screening may be part of the answer, and I am certain that even 'sane' gun lobbyists would agree to some form of screening... perhaps a cooling off period etc


:flop:
Fortes fortuna iuvat

Conspirator
Posts: 2304
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:34 pm

PostThu Jan 31, 2013 9:59 am » by Cia212


Iwanci wrote:surely there is something that can be done to at the very least limit the accesability of guns (and other weapons) to those is our society who are not quite criminals, but can clearly be seen to be of lesser mental capacity than the 'norm'.

For me it is NOT about eliminating gun crime (that will never happen), it is about limiting the carnage..

Screening may be part of the answer, and I am certain that even 'sane' gun lobbyists would agree to some form of screening... perhaps a cooling off period etc

Then anything can be declared a "lesser mental capacity". Obama has stated that wanting a gun is, in itself, the sign of bitter, unstable people.

The reality is that you can ONLY keep guns away from normal, lawful people. It is impossible to do anything else. Criminals, psychos and the mentally unstable will find a way to get a gun...and if they can't, they don't cool off, they make a bomb or grab a knife or whatever it takes.

Like the Brits in the video, we Americans should be ashamed we let things go this far.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2244
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:56 am

PostThu Jan 31, 2013 10:14 am » by Iwanci


I disagree Cia, there are categories of mental illness already in society and we use these categories to exclude certain people from performing certain tasks.. for example, a mentally ill or imbalanced person cannot become an airline pilot or neuro surgeon.. or would you rather they could?

We could use categories we already use...

This will never eliminate guns, nor should it, but it ensures some people are LESS likely to obtain them, now, there is nothing you can do to stop a mentally ill person taking his father's guns for example, this then becomes an issue of common sense in society, whereby the gun owner needs to use his/her own discretion and ensure that they are securely stored.. I would think this is simple common sense.. or is that too much too ask?

We can't just say... 'it can never achieve a 100% result so there is no point', if we took that approach nothing would ever get done.. and it's all well and good until, someone does something stupid (as has recently been the case) and we look back and see that maybe (just maybe) a simple fix may have prevented it.. again, not saying we will prevent all issues, but what if we could prevent just one and in doing so saved lives? not worth it? Or do we just throw our hands up in the air and say.. 'not my problem'?

I will give one further example... we have all heard that more people die on our roads than in airplane crashes right? So then, why all the fear about flying? Most people I know fly as a necesary evil, ie, they don't like the idea as they are scared of crashing, but they fly anyway because they need to get somewhere. Ok... now.... what if a pilot, was going through some personal issues and the crew and the airline safety authorities and the government all knew this and they all thought he may present a danger to himself and others... so what do we do? Cross our fingers and hope that he won't flip? Or do we suspend him for a time whilst we undertake some mental assessment? Using most of the logic I have seen in these forums we could say leave him alone as he has not done anything wrong (yet).. but I would bet that if you knew that this pilot was in charge of a plane you were about to board you would probably not board... or, if something happened and it was revealed that this pilot was mentally unstable and it was known and nothing was done about it and a family member or close friend died as a result, what woul you say... 'oh well? bad luck?'.... nope, you would be ropable (and rightly so) and demand that steps were taken to ensure that such a thing never occured again... no? Or would that be crossing the line on this man's civil rights?


We must do something to reduce the carnage... leaving it as is solves nothing and is an indictment on our society... in the interests of progress we, as a human race, need to approach new issues with new solutions and ensure that everyone's civil rights are looked after..

i saw an add somewhere it read like this...

"I have more rights to ensure I am not shot than you have to shoot"... and I agree.


I understand all the arguments surrounding protection from theives and holding the governement to account etc etc,,, all very valid and I agree with them... but a simple screening test, one that is already common place in society is not that far fetched an answer is it?
Fortes fortuna iuvat

Conspirator
Posts: 2304
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:34 pm

PostThu Jan 31, 2013 10:38 am » by Cia212


Iwanci wrote:I disagree Cia, there are categories of mental illness already in society and we use these categories to exclude certain people from performing certain tasks.. for example, a mentally ill or imbalanced person cannot become an airline pilot or neuro surgeon.. or would you rather they could?

That's very naive.

It doesn't matter what might be a legitimate mental illness, the definition will change to fit a political agenda. The agenda is to disarm the lawful public, therefore definitions will change to help make that happen.

Same way the definition of "minority" changed to fit a political agenda. Legally, all women are considered a minority even though they are, in fact, a slight majority. This was done because of the feminist agenda. History is repeating.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2244
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:56 am

PostThu Jan 31, 2013 11:40 am » by Iwanci


Naive you say? So our current laws and regulations regarding mental illness, the ones that YOU and I abide by are (in your opinion) not valid... and hence we should do away with them?

The problem with people who argue like you do is that you conveniently take elements of truth and chop and change it to suit your own agenda, which incidently happens to be the exact thing you accuse the law makers (or TPTB) of doing...

For me it is a simple thought process.. if you agree that the current laws and regulations regarding mental illness as they apply to aspects of our society that affect YOU and I are warranted, then why not extend the very same laws to encapsulate issues which have appeared through the passage of time?

Good for the aspect that suits you but not good for the aspect that doesn't? hypocrytical?

With regards to women being a minority or majority, are you still living in the 60's? From where I am sitting women are not a minority nor a majority, they are equal and rightly so.. to even cross the path of a gun debate and mental illness with women's rights is radical (I will give you that), but nonsensicle... going by your logic we should never introduce new measures because in the past we introduced measures which needed adjusting....


hmmmm.... time to WAKE UP...


this issue is never going to subside unless one of the following happens:

1/ The people whom this affects the most (gun lobyists) begin a righteous campaign by accepting that there is a problem, and then offer solutions that suit them but also address the concerns of the majority of society.

or

2/ The governement will gain greater pressure to pass legislation that suit one agenda only... and unfortunately many people will be affected

So the gun lobby can chose to be part of the problem or part of the solution..

So, tell me again why expanding legislation which already exists and is already inforce accross the wider US and globe would not be appropriate here? Answer it without the bias of a pro gun person, rather, answer it from the 'logic' stance, don't forget one important element.... there is no new law, simply the very same that YOU expect when the issue affects you directly... again, the mental pilot example..

A mentally fit person walks into a gun shop.... fills in some paper work, waiting period, background check and then goes ahead and buys a gun... no different from obtaining a license where a dangerous activity is involved (eg, pilot, surgery, explosives contractor, heavy machinery etc)...

difference?? please explain...


And before you go off on the 'civil liberties' route again, I remind you that we (especially in the private sector) already have these very same rules.. so nothing new...
Fortes fortuna iuvat

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 699
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 9:22 am
Location: Australia

PostThu Jan 31, 2013 11:53 am » by Flipper


Is this thread still relating to the topic or has it changed to another country?
Image

Conspirator
Posts: 2304
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:34 pm

PostThu Jan 31, 2013 11:57 am » by Cia212


Iwanci wrote:Naive you say? So our current laws and regulations regarding mental illness, the ones that YOU and I abide by are (in your opinion) not valid... and hence we should do away with them?

The problem with people who argue like you do is that you conveniently take elements of truth and chop and change it to suit your own agenda, which incidently happens to be the exact thing you accuse the law makers (or TPTB) of doing...

You're trying to set up a straw man argument. "So our current laws and regulations regarding mental illness, the ones that YOU and I abide by are (in your opinion) not valid" - is not what I said or meant.

I mean that, once a nebulous term like "mental illness" becomes a deciding factor in gun ownership, ANYTHING will conveniently be called a mental illness, regardless of it's clinical validity.

That's why I even included the example of minority status, so you wouldn't get confused. You are either not paying attention to what I'm saying, or willfully trying to mischaracterize my reasoning.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2244
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:56 am

PostThu Jan 31, 2013 12:27 pm » by Iwanci


Nope Cia, I understand your argument however I do not agree with it ..

You cannot say that our mental illness laws are fine or not an issue, but when you try to superimpose them onto another issue (in this case gun control) that they will be misused... if they are going to be misused they are already being misused/abused.


I also understand the reluctance to accept any type of reform on gun ownership, I understand and to a point I agree with the sentiments... however, something IS going to change and I believe that it is better for the change to come from within or with acceptance from those who stand to lose the most, gun owners.. I would hate to see a situation where a new law is introduced that not only doesn't fix any problems but that is also extremely resented.


Let me understand something else.. I assume that in the US you require a license to drive a car? isn't it a right to own and drive a car? who determines if someone is mentally 'fit' to drive a car? is this not all subjective?

So again...

why a mental fitness test to drive a car, to handle explosives, to partake in a hazardous job, to pilot a plane, to join the military, to be a member of the police force, to drive an ambulance etc etc.. and why NOT to own a high powered weapon? This is the part I am struggling to understand...

Wouldn't YOU feel a tad safer knowing that you at least need to be mentally sane to buy a gun and hence by definition you would expect that someone, somewhere is preventing a less than mentally stable person from purchasing a weapon? Much in the same way you are 'subconciously' happy in the knowledge that not just anyone can fly that plane you are siiting in, not just anyone can operate on your insides when you need an operation, they don't just let ant trigger happy cowboy become a police officer, and yes, there's a soldier with a high powered weapon and I feel safer knowing that he has been through some phsyco assessment and is there to protect me not harm me..


You see, we accept mental screening in much if not most of our society for things which we take for granted, and yet ownership of weapons that can cause great harm requires no assessment??

Forget about all the hype for one second and try and think through the logical argument... also, forget about all the conspiracy, 'if you knew that the governement was NOT trying to disarm you but was only driven by the need to address this issue of concern, if you 100% knew this'.. then what do you say?
Fortes fortuna iuvat


PreviousNext

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook