GUN CONTROL & YOU

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='BengalBacker' post='475355' date='Apr 20 2007, 02:22 PM']The right to defend yourself is right up there with food and shelter.[/quote]


except the admenment says nothing about defending [i][b]yourself[/b][/i]

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='475351' date='Apr 20 2007, 02:19 PM']fair question...

no
[b]<edit> although, i would at least rebuke his facts, instead of simply saying "but its michael moore so i won't even read what he wrote"...[/b][/quote]


And there you go, you would [b]by default[/b] go out and argue against his opinion.

You have more time than I do apparently.



And on that note I have to get a paper done for school, so I got to jet.

[Guest BengalBacker]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='475357' date='Apr 20 2007, 02:23 PM']except the admenment says nothing about defending [i][b]yourself[/b][/i] [/quote]


Again, I don't argue this from the standpoint of the constitution. I don't care what it says. I don't care what the government says. My right to defend myself and my family transcends all that. Unless I've proven myself to be a danger to innocent people, no one has the right to take away my ability to defend my family.

[Actium]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='475352' date='Apr 20 2007, 01:19 PM']So then lets start doling them out to those who want them.

By luxary I mean you have to pay for it.

Needs
......

Food
Shelter
ect

Luxary
...........
Big Screen TVs
Nice Cars
Guns[/quote]

They are a right because you can own them. They are not an entitlement.

[rudi32]

jamie, how can u call people who like to shoot crazy?

I enjoy shooting, I compete in police pistol competitions every summer.

I own an ak, and I love it. Its fun to go to the range and see how good u can do shooting a full 30 round clip from 100 yards, at metal and paper targets.

I dont shoot as much as i did years ago, but people who hunt, and target shoot are not "crazy" as u have stated.

They get enjoyment from shooting the guns, I know I do, and I pride myself on wiinning the competitions I enter

[Actium]

[quote name='rudi32' post='475385' date='Apr 20 2007, 02:16 PM']jamie, how can u call people who like to shoot crazy?

I enjoy shooting, I compete in police pistol competitions every summer.

I own an ak, and I love it. Its fun to go to the range and see how good u can do shooting a full 30 round clip from 100 yards, at metal and paper targets.

I dont shoot as much as i did years ago, but people who hunt, and target shoot are not "crazy" as u have stated.

They get enjoyment from shooting the guns, I know I do, and I pride myself on wiinning the competitions I enter[/quote]

When at diabetic summer camp (no really), I always took the marksmanship class. I wasn't very good but the instructor handed out a bunch of medals to everyone who participated. So I have all these NRA awards I pinned to my jean jacket. It's the greatest jacket ever.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='BengalBacker' post='475361' date='Apr 20 2007, 02:28 PM']Again, I don't argue this from the standpoint of the constitution. I don't care what it says. I don't care what the government says. My right to defend myself and my family transcends all that. Unless I've proven myself to be a danger to innocent people, no one has the right to take away my ability to defend my family.[/quote]


Taking a 5 minute break from my paper, let me answer a few of these.

"i dont care what the goverment says"

You have the spirit of a revolutionary in you, now focus it young jedi together you and BJ will rule the galaxy!!!

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='rudi32' post='475385' date='Apr 20 2007, 03:16 PM']jamie, how can u call people who like to shoot crazy?

I enjoy shooting, I compete in police pistol competitions every summer.

I own an ak, and I love it. Its fun to go to the range and see how good u can do shooting a full 30 round clip from 100 yards, at metal and paper targets.

I dont shoot as much as i did years ago, but people who hunt, and target shoot are not "crazy" as u have stated.

They get enjoyment from shooting the guns, I know I do, and I pride myself on wiinning the competitions I enter[/quote]


With all due respect rudi, you continue to take something someone says and run with it (think anti-american rant). I never said people who like to shoot are crazy. What I said is Nugant is a Gun Nut = right wing extreamist on this issue. There is a clear difference. (And I dont need to read this article to know that, Ive seen him in interiews)

Now what I said about those who enjoy it is that I dont understand their psyche. Dictonary.com defines psyche as "human soal, spirit, or mind". I dont understand the mindset of those who enjoy it, they scare the shit out of me and I would never associate myself with them. (Not that I think Im better) If that makes me an elietest as Rick says, then so be it.

[CatScratchFever]

Apparently a lot has happened since I last posted in this thread. Sorry, I don't have time now to read it all, but I do want to respond to Jamie:

Finding enjoyment in guns is different from finding enjoyment in killing people. I'm not a gun owner myself or one who partakes in hunting or any other gun-related activity, but I support the rights of those who do.
I have only had experience with firearms once in my life, and that was one day when an ex-girlfriend's father took me skeet-shooting with him.
I can honestly say I had a great time with it, and got a lot of enjoyment from shooting that gun that day. No one got hurt, no one got killed. There was no malice in the heart of anyone shooting that day. It was fun like playing flag football or a game of Unreal Tournament is fun.
Shooting is a skill that takes practice and patience to learn. Practicing and improving that skill gives many people a great sense of accomplishment. Unlike what anti-gun pundits would like you to believe, it has nothing to do with a sense of power or control over those weaker than you, at least for responsible gun enthusiasts. It's the same sense of accomplishment you get when you finish a detailed painting, writing a song, or scoring 999,999 on Tetris.
You don't have to kill someone or something to enjoy guns, and enjoying it does not make one evil, sick, or disturbed.
Frankly, I don't understand how anyone gets enjoyment out of watching opera, but that doesn't make that person evil. Killing people makes one evil.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Ho-hos didn't make Rosie O'Donnell fat. Rosie made Rosie fat. And ugly. And really fucking annoying... and did I mention ugly? But I digress...

[Actium]

[quote name='CatScratchFever' post='475430' date='Apr 20 2007, 04:11 PM']Apparently a lot has happened since I last posted in this thread. Sorry, I don't have time now to read it all, but I do want to respond to Jamie:

Finding enjoyment in guns is different from finding enjoyment in killing people. I'm not a gun owner myself or one who partakes in hunting or any other gun-related activity, but I support the rights of those who do.
I have only had experience with firearms once in my life, and that was one day when an ex-girlfriend's father took me skeet-shooting with him.
I can honestly say I had a great time with it, and got a lot of enjoyment from shooting that gun that day. No one got hurt, no one got killed. There was no malice in the heart of anyone shooting that day. It was fun like playing flag football or a game of Unreal Tournament is fun.
Shooting is a skill that takes practice and patience to learn. Practicing and improving that skill gives many people a great sense of accomplishment. Unlike what anti-gun pundits would like you to believe, it has nothing to do with a sense of power or control over those weaker than you, at least for responsible gun enthusiasts. It's the same sense of accomplishment you get when you finish a detailed painting, writing a song, or scoring 999,999 on Tetris.
You don't have to kill someone or something to enjoy guns, and enjoying it does not make one evil, sick, or disturbed.
Frankly, I don't understand how anyone gets enjoyment out of watching opera, but that doesn't make that person evil. Killing people makes one evil.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Ho-hos didn't make Rosie O'Donnell fat. Rosie made Rosie fat. And ugly. And really fucking annoying... and did I mention ugly? But I digress...[/quote]

At the risk of hijacking the thread, Accepted was a really funny movie.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='CatScratchFever' post='475430' date='Apr 20 2007, 05:11 PM']Apparently a lot has happened since I last posted in this thread. Sorry, I don't have time now to read it all, but I do want to respond to Jamie:

Finding enjoyment in guns is different from finding enjoyment in killing people. I'm not a gun owner myself or one who partakes in hunting or any other gun-related activity, but I support the rights of those who do.
I have only had experience with firearms once in my life, and that was one day when an ex-girlfriend's father took me skeet-shooting with him.
I can honestly say I had a great time with it, and got a lot of enjoyment from shooting that gun that day. No one got hurt, no one got killed. There was no malice in the heart of anyone shooting that day. It was fun like playing flag football or a game of Unreal Tournament is fun.
Shooting is a skill that takes practice and patience to learn. Practicing and improving that skill gives many people a great sense of accomplishment. Unlike what anti-gun pundits would like you to believe, it has nothing to do with a sense of power or control over those weaker than you, at least for responsible gun enthusiasts. It's the same sense of accomplishment you get when you finish a detailed painting, writing a song, or scoring 999,999 on Tetris.
You don't have to kill someone or something to enjoy guns, and enjoying it does not make one evil, sick, or disturbed.
Frankly, I don't understand how anyone gets enjoyment out of watching opera, but that doesn't make that person evil. Killing people makes one evil.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Ho-hos didn't make Rosie O'Donnell fat. Rosie made Rosie fat. And ugly. And really fucking annoying... and did I mention ugly? But I digress...[/quote]



And thats what I dont understand, I dont understand the mentality of someone that finds enjoyment in them. What is it about that person that makes them enjoy firearms as opposed to any other form of entertainment. Im not sure that Id ever want to be around the type to find that out.

[CatScratchFever]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='475462' date='Apr 20 2007, 07:02 PM']And thats what I dont understand, I dont understand the mentality of someone that finds enjoyment in them. What is it about that person that makes them enjoy firearms as opposed to any other form of entertainment. Im not sure that Id ever want to be around the type to find that out.[/quote]
Maybe you ought to try shooting skeet sometime. Or maybe take an archery class. You never know, you might end up enjoying the challenge.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='475251' date='Apr 20 2007, 01:01 PM']clearly, if ONE person had a gun at VTech and the balls to use it, about 30 people would probably have their lives... at least, that is what the history of these events dictates...[/quote]


[color="#556B2F"][font="Arial Narrow"][size=3][b][size=4]Possibly ... the other issue that could have occured is rampant cross fire could it not ?[/size] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/39.gif[/img]



Let's say 2 crazy bad guys walk into a cafeteria to kill as many people as possible ... in this cafeteria are 20 different armed people scattered throughout ...


As the first 2 men open fire ... one man jumps up (good guy #1) and shoots one of them ... however another good Samaritan with his own gun sees this good guy shoot the bad guy and thus thinks he is an "attacker" ... so thus the good Samaritan shoots good guy #1 ... at this time good guy #2 sees the good Samaritan shoot good guy # 1 and thus believes that the good Samaritan is an attacker and thus shoots him ... at this time attacker #2 who is still alive then shoots good guy #2 ... and all out chaos ensues ... with the remaining armed men unsure of who they should shoot next. Because now you have a room of 17 more crazed guys all with guns drawn pointing them at each other ... and screaming "drop your weapon" to each other .... while none of them are willing to drop their own weapon for fear that the guy with a gun pointing at them is a bad guy and not a good one.

Next the police storm in the cafeteria and see tons of men with guns drawn and open fire on the whole place and any guy holding a weapon. [/b][/size][/font][/color]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote name='BengalBacker' post='475323' date='Apr 20 2007, 02:00 PM']BJ is insane on occasion.
[/quote]


[size=3][font="Arial Narrow"][b] For those keeping score ... I will "turn the other cheek" and not respond. [/b][/font][/size]

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='CatScratchFever' post='475468' date='Apr 20 2007, 07:35 PM']Maybe you ought to try shooting skeet sometime. Or maybe take an archery class. You never know, you might end up enjoying the challenge.[/quote]


Took archery when I was in middle school, and while I was pretty good at it, I dont know that I "enjoyed" it, never had the desire to continue it. Just dont get those who do.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='BengalBacker' post='475341' date='Apr 20 2007, 12:10 PM']I don't need to be regulated. I need to have the ability to defend myself and my family. I don't see how paying dues to a militia serves any purpose, other than being some sort of punishment for my desire to own a gun.[/quote]
I agree. Jamie, I don't understand why you would devalue anyone's opinion for enjoying shooting guns. I don't hunt, I don't own a gun now, but when I was in the Army and when I DID own a gun, target practice was FUN. Just because yo uenjoy shooting doesn't make you Ted Nugent, or even an NRA member.
I agree with Ted on one big tihng when it comes to hunting: it isn't for trophies and you waste as little of the harvested animal as possible. This is what the Indians did, and this is what smart hunters do.
Hanging taxidermied heads on a wall is for losers.
Guns should be regulated so they aren't like buying candy ata store but they shouldn't be made impossible to buy for those honest Americans that qualify to purchase them and that have a genuine reason for their use.
If I didn't have small children, I'd buy a handgun right now. And the lack of owning one makes me feel a little less safe from a potential attacker.
Good thing I have a baseball bat and a butcher knife.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='475472' date='Apr 20 2007, 05:47 PM'][color="#556B2F"][font="Arial Narrow"][size=3][b][size=4]Possibly ... the other issue that could have occured is rampant cross fire could it not ?[/size] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/39.gif[/img]
Let's say 2 crazy bad guys walk into a cafeteria to kill as many people as possible ... in this cafeteria are 20 different armed people scattered throughout ...
As the first 2 men open fire ... one man jumps up (good guy #1) and shoots one of them ... however another good Samaritan with his own gun sees this good guy shoot the bad guy and thus thinks he is an "attacker" ... so thus the good Samaritan shoots good guy #1 ... at this time good guy #2 sees the good Samaritan shoot good guy # 1 and thus believes that the good Samaritan is an attacker and thus shoots him ... at this time attacker #2 who is still alive then shoots good guy #2 ... and all out chaos ensues ... with the remaining armed men unsure of who they should shoot next. Because now you have a room of 17 more crazed guys all with guns drawn pointing them at each other ... and screaming "drop your weapon" to each other .... while none of them are willing to drop their own weapon for fear that the guy with a gun pointing at them is a bad guy and not a good one.

Next the police storm in the cafeteria and see tons of men with guns drawn and open fire on the whole place and any guy holding a weapon. [/b][/size][/font][/color][/quote]
Unlikely oversimplification, and a scenario that can and would be avoided if the "good guys" had required gun safety/use training, which I support, particularly for handguns, which have the lions share of violent crime attached to them due to their concealable nature and ease of use.

[CatScratchFever]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='475472' date='Apr 20 2007, 07:47 PM'][color="#556B2F"][font="Arial Narrow"][size=3][b][size=4]Possibly ... the other issue that could have occured is rampant cross fire could it not ?[/size] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/39.gif[/img]
Let's say 2 crazy bad guys walk into a cafeteria to kill as many people as possible ... in this cafeteria are 20 different armed people scattered throughout ...
As the first 2 men open fire ... one man jumps up (good guy #1) and shoots one of them ... however another good Samaritan with his own gun sees this good guy shoot the bad guy and thus thinks he is an "attacker" ... so thus the good Samaritan shoots good guy #1 ... at this time good guy #2 sees the good Samaritan shoot good guy # 1 and thus believes that the good Samaritan is an attacker and thus shoots him ... at this time attacker #2 who is still alive then shoots good guy #2 ... and all out chaos ensues ... with the remaining armed men unsure of who they should shoot next. Because now you have a room of 17 more crazed guys all with guns drawn pointing them at each other ... and screaming "drop your weapon" to each other .... while none of them are willing to drop their own weapon for fear that the guy with a gun pointing at them is a bad guy and not a good one.

Next the police storm in the cafeteria and see tons of men with guns drawn and open fire on the whole place and any guy holding a weapon. [/b][/size][/font][/color][/quote]
An unlikely scenario, at best. The first half assumes that everyone in the cafeteria is trigger happy. As for the second half, cops never just "storm in", especially when they know there are deadly weapons involved.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='CatScratchFever' post='475494' date='Apr 20 2007, 07:09 PM']An unlikely scenario, at best. The first half assumes that everyone in the cafeteria is trigger happy. As for the second half, [b]cops never just "storm in", especially when they know there are deadly weapons involved.[/b][/quote]
Even if they probably should have in the case of the VA Tech shootings.

[CatScratchFever]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='475485' date='Apr 20 2007, 08:34 PM']Took archery when I was in middle school, and while I was pretty good at it, I dont know that I "enjoyed" it, never had the desire to continue it. Just dont get those who do.[/quote]
If everyone enjoyed the same things, the world would be a very uninteresting place. Or we'd have a whole lot of people maxing out their Tetris score. Not sure which.

[Nati Ice]

[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/us/21guns.html?ex=1334808000&en=ccdbced29ef120cf&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss"]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/us/21gun...hoo&emc=rss[/url]

[quote][b]U.S. Rules Made Killer Ineligible to Purchase Gun[/b]

WASHINGTON, April 20 — Under federal law, the Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho should have been prohibited from buying a gun after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment, a state official and several legal experts said Friday.

Federal law prohibits anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective,” as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from buying a gun.

The special justice’s order in late 2005 that directed Mr. Cho to seek outpatient treatment and declared him to be mentally ill and an imminent danger to himself fits the federal criteria and should have immediately disqualified him, said Richard J. Bonnie, chairman of the Supreme Court of Virginia’s Commission on Mental Health Law Reform.

A spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives also said that if Mr. Cho had been found mentally defective by a court, he should have been denied the right to purchase a gun.

The federal law defines adjudication as a mental defective to include “determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority” that as a result of mental illness, the person is a “danger to himself or others.”

Mr. Cho’s ability to buy two guns despite his history has brought new attention to the adequacy of background checks that scrutinize potential gun buyers. And since federal gun laws depend on states for enforcement, the failure of Virginia to flag Mr. Cho highlights the often incomplete information provided by states to federal authorities.

Currently, only 22 states submit any mental health records to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in a statement on Thursday. Virginia is the leading state in reporting disqualifications based on mental health criteria for the federal check system, the statement said.

Virginia state law on mental health disqualifications to firearms purchases, however, is worded slightly differently from the federal statute. So the form that Virginia courts use to notify state police about a mental health disqualification addresses only the state criteria, which list two potential categories that would warrant notification to the state police: someone who was “involuntarily committed” or ruled mentally “incapacitated.”

“It’s clear we have an imperfect connection between state law and the application of the federal prohibition,” Mr. Bonnie said. The commission he leads was created by the state last year to examine the state’s mental health laws.

Mr. Bonnie, the director of the University of Virginia Institute on Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy, said his panel would look into the matter. “We are going to fix this,” he said.

“I’m sure that the misfit exists in states across the country and the underreporting exists,” he said.

After two female Virginia Tech students complained about Mr. Cho’s behavior in 2005, he was sent to a psychiatric unit for evaluation and then ordered to undergo outpatient treatment, which would not qualify as an involuntary commitment under Virginia law, Mr. Bonnie said.

“What they did was use the terms that fit Virginia law,” he said. “They weren’t thinking about the federal. I suspect nobody even knew about these federal regulations.”

But Christopher Slobogin, a law professor at the University of Florida who is an expert on mental health, said that under his reading of Virginia law, outpatient treatment could qualify as involuntary commitment, meaning Virginia law should have barred Mr. Cho from buying a weapon as well. Mr. Bonnie said he and the state’s attorney general disagreed with that interpretation.

Mr. Slobogin added that the federal statute “on the plain face of the language, it would definitely apply to Cho.”

A spokesman for the Virginia attorney general’s office declined to comment on Friday, saying only that various agencies were “reviewing this situation.”

Richard Marianos, a spokesman for the federal firearms agency, said Friday that federal and state officials were looking into the question, studying the court proceedings and testimony.

But Mr. Marianos added, “If he was adjudicated as a mental defective by a court, he should have been disqualified.”

Dennis Henigan, legal director at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the oversight on the federal law in Virginia had probably been occurring for some time.

“They may have been doing this for years, just basically assuming, if the guy’s not disqualified under state law, then we don’t have to send anything to the state police,” Mr. Henigan said. “It’s a failure to recognize the independent obligation to the federal law.”

Most states do not follow the letter of the federal law when it comes to the mental health provisions, said Ron Honberg, legal director for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, an advocacy group.

“I suspect if we look at all the requirements that exist for the states, there’s probably a whole lot of them that don’t implement them,” Mr. Honberg said, explaining that the gap often comes from a lack of resources but also because no one is enforcing the requirements.

“When something like this happens, then people start to pay attention to this,” he said.

Representative Carolyn McCarthy, Democrat of New York, has been pushing a bill to require states to automate their criminal history records so computer databases used to conduct background checks on gun buyers are more complete.

The bill would also require states to submit their mental health records to their background check systems and give them money to allow them to do so.

According to gun control advocates, the mental health information currently submitted to the national check system is often spotty and incomplete, something Ms. McCarthy’s bill is designed to address.

Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan and a former member of the National Rifle Association’s board of directors, is co-sponsoring the bill, which has twice passed the House only to stall in the Senate. Congressional aides say Mr. Dingell is negotiating with pro-gun groups to come up with language acceptable to them.

“The N.R.A. doesn’t have objections,” Mr. Dingell said in an interview. “There are other gun organizations on this that are problems.”

A spokesman for the rifle association declined to comment Friday on the legislation, but Mr. Dingell said the measure could prevent future tragedies.

“It resolves some serious problems in terms of preventing the wrong people from getting firearms,” he said.[/quote]