Duffy wrote:
Convicted felons are already prohibited from owning guns.Assault usually isn't a felony
Lavender Room
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: 20 Years of Inaction [Duffy]
[ In reply to ]
Assault usually isn't a felony
Re: 20 Years of Inaction [DavHamm]
[ In reply to ]
DavHamm wrote:
TTF70.3 wrote:
windywave wrote:
TTF70.3 wrote:
Duffy wrote:
DavHamm wrote:
Jim @ LOTO, MO wrote:
We obviously need stricter gun laws--like those in that democRAT-controlled nirvana of Chicago. Chicago -- 2019 Year to Date
Shot & Killed: 113
Shot & Wounded: 472
Total Shot: 585
American politic's .. don't suggest solutions, just try to show why the other guy is wrong...
Personally I would rather see both sides get there way, tighter gun control laws, stiffer penalties, better gun education.. Dem's win, Rep's win... WE ALL WIN.. instead Reps wont support Dems, Dems wont support Reps Nothing happens and WE ALL LOSE.
What specific laws need to be changed? Would those new laws have prevented any previous gun murders if they were in place?
What about enforcing current laws?
Here in a California felons cannot possess firearms. All firearms are registered at purchase and there are background checks done on a state level.
A journalist matched the gun registrations (remember these were “legal” purchases, as in not on the street but in gun stores) with the database of felons and found that thousands of felon bought and registered guns in the state and the state did....
...nothing.
So let’s enforce current laws before further restricting law abiding gun owners. If you pass new laws and don’t enforce them the only people who would follow those laws aren’t the type who kill people.
The vast vast vast majority of gun violence (other than suicides) is gang related. New restrictions on gun ownership ain’t gonna do shit about that.
So 20 years of inaction on enforcing existing laws. Why?
Disparate impact.
Do you know anyone that's been in a mass school shooting? Know anyone that's been shot in one.
Regurgitating some bullshit you've read in the newspaper this week about 20 year anniversary shows a complete lack of knowledge on the subject. (Do some research and you'll know why your ignorance disgusts me). The common theme to these fucking school shootings is mentally unstable people who were mainstreamed instead of institutionalized. That's the solution not gun laws dipshit.
him
You want more gun control asshole pick a different reason than school shootings.
So 20 years of inaction on institutionalizing mentally unstable people is the problem, not guns?
Either Australia and the UK have been successful in locking up mentally unstable people or gun control has kept guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.
As for a different reason, as I said in my OP the US has a much higher rate of homicide that other compatible countries. That seems like another good reason.
I would venture a guess that Australia and the UK have been more successful in treating the mentally ill.
Your comment alone shows how F'd up the US is when dealing with Mental illness. We treat it like its not a medical condition. Your comment implies the solution is to lock people up. Why would you not treat them, like you treat someone with the measles or even leprosy. Leper colonies were eliminated a long time ago. As someone being treated for a tumor in my head, I can tell you chemical imbalances of the brain, are treatable and it is amazing how much of a person's behavior's are controlled by the chemical balance of the body.
Oh, I know the answer to this one.
The reason we don't treat them the same as measles is that we have no conclusive way to treat people with mental issues. Measles on the other hand we know how to treat and prevent. If you talk to Psychiatrists they will talk about chemical imbalances and use of drugs for treatment (along with therapy). Psychologists will talk therapy. Social Workers, who knows. The problem is that diagnostics and treatment vary, and in reality we do not know causes or treatments that can be highly successful. Each therapist does things differently. Patients are told to try different things until something works. That is not a winning answer. For people who may pose a threat, it is better to lock-up and treat than to treat and pray...
Re: 20 Years of Inaction [scorpio516]
[ In reply to ]
scorpio516 wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Convicted felons are already prohibited from owning guns.Assault usually isn't a felony
That’s not a gun problem.
Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.
- Chinese proverb
Re: 20 Years of Inaction [JSA]
[ In reply to ]
JSA wrote:
BCtriguy1 wrote:
Vancouver has a terrible opiod problem. But hey, if you just ignore the area know as east Hastings, it barely has a problem at all! Problem solved.
Serious question (unrelated to the topic at hand) - isn't that part of the reason Canada legalized marijuana (or is in the process of doing so)?
I don't believe so. Talk of legalization has been going on for quite some time, and that talk usually revolved around legalizing what is a pretty harmless product that there is a huge demand for, spending fewer resources on policing casual weed use, etc. Legalization was never going to happen under our last government (conservative) and was an election promise made by Trudeau.
The opioid problem seems to have only really come to the forefront of politics in the last couple of years, and only because 'regular people' (drug experimenting teens, the odd casual coke user, etc) were dying due to fentanyl laced drugs. I don't think that access to legal weed was really much of a selling point on reducing harm caused by opioids. I could be wrong though.
Long Chile was a silly place.
Re: 20 Years of Inaction [BCtriguy1]
[ In reply to ]
BCtriguy1 wrote:
JSA wrote:
BCtriguy1 wrote:
Vancouver has a terrible opiod problem. But hey, if you just ignore the area know as east Hastings, it barely has a problem at all! Problem solved.
Serious question (unrelated to the topic at hand) - isn't that part of the reason Canada legalized marijuana (or is in the process of doing so)?
I don't believe so. Talk of legalization has been going on for quite some time, and that talk usually revolved around legalizing what is a pretty harmless product that there is a huge demand for, spending fewer resources on policing casual weed use, etc. Legalization was never going to happen under our last government (conservative) and was an election promise made by Trudeau.
The opioid problem seems to have only really come to the forefront of politics in the last couple of years, and only because 'regular people' (drug experimenting teens, the odd casual coke user, etc) were dying due to fentanyl laced drugs. I don't think that access to legal weed was really much of a selling point on reducing harm caused by opioids. I could be wrong though.
There is a push in Wisconsin to follow Michigan (to an extent). Under the Gov's plan, all med marijuana would be decriminalized as would 5 mg and under for personal use. Part of the push has to do with the opioid epidemic. FWIW, I'm firmly in support.
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers
Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Re: 20 Years of Inaction [JSA]
[ In reply to ]
JSA wrote:
BCtriguy1 wrote:
JSA wrote:
BCtriguy1 wrote:
Vancouver has a terrible opiod problem. But hey, if you just ignore the area know as east Hastings, it barely has a problem at all! Problem solved.
Serious question (unrelated to the topic at hand) - isn't that part of the reason Canada legalized marijuana (or is in the process of doing so)?
I don't believe so. Talk of legalization has been going on for quite some time, and that talk usually revolved around legalizing what is a pretty harmless product that there is a huge demand for, spending fewer resources on policing casual weed use, etc. Legalization was never going to happen under our last government (conservative) and was an election promise made by Trudeau.
The opioid problem seems to have only really come to the forefront of politics in the last couple of years, and only because 'regular people' (drug experimenting teens, the odd casual coke user, etc) were dying due to fentanyl laced drugs. I don't think that access to legal weed was really much of a selling point on reducing harm caused by opioids. I could be wrong though.
There is a push in Wisconsin to follow Michigan (to an extent). Under the Gov's plan, all med marijuana would be decriminalized as would 5 mg and under for personal use. Part of the push has to do with the opioid epidemic. FWIW, I'm firmly in support.
The thought process being that doctors could prescribe MJ products for pain relief instead of opioids? If so, I would agree. I haven't really heard much about that being the case here. It seems like legalization was mainly targeted at recreational users.
It has brought up some interesting problems. Some tenants have been fighting smoking bans in rental units. They argue that, because they are medical MJ users they should not be banned from taking their medicine in their home. I'd be pretty pissed if my rental was ruined by smoke, medicinal or not.
Long Chile was a silly place.
Re: 20 Years of Inaction [BCtriguy1]
[ In reply to ]
BCtriguy1 wrote:
The thought process being that doctors could prescribe MJ products for pain relief instead of opioids? If so, I would agree. I haven't really heard much about that being the case here. It seems like legalization was mainly targeted at recreational users.Correct. A lot of studies showing THC is more effective than opioids with far fewer negative side-effect.
BCtriguy1 wrote:
It has brought up some interesting problems. Some tenants have been fighting smoking bans in rental units. They argue that, because they are medical MJ users they should not be banned from taking their medicine in their home. I'd be pretty pissed if my rental was ruined by smoke, medicinal or not.Agreed. In most states in which MJ has been decriminalized, the smoking bans are still in effect. Given the fact that medical MJ can be ingested, claiming the need to smoke it for medicinal purposes isn't legit.
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers
Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Re: 20 Years of Inaction [windywave]
[ In reply to ]
windywave wrote:
TTF70.3 wrote:
windywave wrote:
TTF70.3 wrote:
Duffy wrote:
DavHamm wrote:
Jim @ LOTO, MO wrote:
We obviously need stricter gun laws--like those in that democRAT-controlled nirvana of Chicago. Chicago -- 2019 Year to Date
Shot & Killed: 113
Shot & Wounded: 472
Total Shot: 585
American politic's .. don't suggest solutions, just try to show why the other guy is wrong...
Personally I would rather see both sides get there way, tighter gun control laws, stiffer penalties, better gun education.. Dem's win, Rep's win... WE ALL WIN.. instead Reps wont support Dems, Dems wont support Reps Nothing happens and WE ALL LOSE.
What specific laws need to be changed? Would those new laws have prevented any previous gun murders if they were in place?
What about enforcing current laws?
Here in a California felons cannot possess firearms. All firearms are registered at purchase and there are background checks done on a state level.
A journalist matched the gun registrations (remember these were “legal” purchases, as in not on the street but in gun stores) with the database of felons and found that thousands of felon bought and registered guns in the state and the state did....
...nothing.
So let’s enforce current laws before further restricting law abiding gun owners. If you pass new laws and don’t enforce them the only people who would follow those laws aren’t the type who kill people.
The vast vast vast majority of gun violence (other than suicides) is gang related. New restrictions on gun ownership ain’t gonna do shit about that.
So 20 years of inaction on enforcing existing laws. Why?
Disparate impact.
Do you know anyone that's been in a mass school shooting? Know anyone that's been shot in one.
Regurgitating some bullshit you've read in the newspaper this week about 20 year anniversary shows a complete lack of knowledge on the subject. (Do some research and you'll know why your ignorance disgusts me). The common theme to these fucking school shootings is mentally unstable people who were mainstreamed instead of institutionalized. That's the solution not gun laws dipshit.
him
You want more gun control asshole pick a different reason than school shootings.
So 20 years of inaction on institutionalizing mentally unstable people is the problem, not guns?
Either Australia and the UK have been successful in locking up mentally unstable people or gun control has kept guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.
As for a different reason, as I said in my OP the US has a much higher rate of homicide that other compatible countries. That seems like another good reason.
So the answer is no. Apparently you didn't do any research beyond reading the front page of the newspaper.
You will have to help me out here. Over the years I have done a ton of research on guns and the effectiveness of gun control. What research are you talking about? You vaguely hinting that there is information to support your point is a weak argument and does not help the debate.
Re: 20 Years of Inaction [DavHamm]
[ In reply to ]
DavHamm wrote:
TTF70.3 wrote:
windywave wrote:
TTF70.3 wrote:
Duffy wrote:
DavHamm wrote:
Jim @ LOTO, MO wrote:
We obviously need stricter gun laws--like those in that democRAT-controlled nirvana of Chicago. Chicago -- 2019 Year to Date
Shot & Killed: 113
Shot & Wounded: 472
Total Shot: 585
American politic's .. don't suggest solutions, just try to show why the other guy is wrong...
Personally I would rather see both sides get there way, tighter gun control laws, stiffer penalties, better gun education.. Dem's win, Rep's win... WE ALL WIN.. instead Reps wont support Dems, Dems wont support Reps Nothing happens and WE ALL LOSE.
What specific laws need to be changed? Would those new laws have prevented any previous gun murders if they were in place?
What about enforcing current laws?
Here in a California felons cannot possess firearms. All firearms are registered at purchase and there are background checks done on a state level.
A journalist matched the gun registrations (remember these were “legal” purchases, as in not on the street but in gun stores) with the database of felons and found that thousands of felon bought and registered guns in the state and the state did....
...nothing.
So let’s enforce current laws before further restricting law abiding gun owners. If you pass new laws and don’t enforce them the only people who would follow those laws aren’t the type who kill people.
The vast vast vast majority of gun violence (other than suicides) is gang related. New restrictions on gun ownership ain’t gonna do shit about that.
So 20 years of inaction on enforcing existing laws. Why?
Disparate impact.
Do you know anyone that's been in a mass school shooting? Know anyone that's been shot in one.
Regurgitating some bullshit you've read in the newspaper this week about 20 year anniversary shows a complete lack of knowledge on the subject. (Do some research and you'll know why your ignorance disgusts me). The common theme to these fucking school shootings is mentally unstable people who were mainstreamed instead of institutionalized. That's the solution not gun laws dipshit.
him
You want more gun control asshole pick a different reason than school shootings.
So 20 years of inaction on institutionalizing mentally unstable people is the problem, not guns?
Either Australia and the UK have been successful in locking up mentally unstable people or gun control has kept guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.
As for a different reason, as I said in my OP the US has a much higher rate of homicide that other compatible countries. That seems like another good reason.
I would venture a guess that Australia and the UK have been more successful in treating the mentally ill.
Your comment alone shows how F'd up the US is when dealing with Mental illness. We treat it like its not a medical condition. Your comment implies the solution is to lock people up. Why would you not treat them, like you treat someone with the measles or even leprosy. Leper colonies were eliminated a long time ago. As someone being treated for a tumor in my head, I can tell you chemical imbalances of the brain, are treatable and it is amazing how much of a person's behavior's are controlled by the chemical balance of the body.
I was being facetious. I certainly do not advocate locking up people with mental health issues. I think that Windywave is implying that mentally ill people should be institutionalized.
I hope your tumour treatment goes well.
I have spent some time in Australia. I do not think they have been more successful than the US in treating mental illness. Many of the homeless have mental health issues. Regularly there was public debate in the media about the lack of support services for the mentally ill. Gun control makes it difficult for the wrong people to obtain fire arms.
Re: 20 Years of Inaction [TTF70.3]
[ In reply to ]
TTF70.3 wrote:
windywave wrote:
TTF70.3 wrote:
windywave wrote:
TTF70.3 wrote:
Duffy wrote:
DavHamm wrote:
Jim @ LOTO, MO wrote:
We obviously need stricter gun laws--like those in that democRAT-controlled nirvana of Chicago. Chicago -- 2019 Year to Date
Shot & Killed: 113
Shot & Wounded: 472
Total Shot: 585
American politic's .. don't suggest solutions, just try to show why the other guy is wrong...
Personally I would rather see both sides get there way, tighter gun control laws, stiffer penalties, better gun education.. Dem's win, Rep's win... WE ALL WIN.. instead Reps wont support Dems, Dems wont support Reps Nothing happens and WE ALL LOSE.
What specific laws need to be changed? Would those new laws have prevented any previous gun murders if they were in place?
What about enforcing current laws?
Here in a California felons cannot possess firearms. All firearms are registered at purchase and there are background checks done on a state level.
A journalist matched the gun registrations (remember these were “legal” purchases, as in not on the street but in gun stores) with the database of felons and found that thousands of felon bought and registered guns in the state and the state did....
...nothing.
So let’s enforce current laws before further restricting law abiding gun owners. If you pass new laws and don’t enforce them the only people who would follow those laws aren’t the type who kill people.
The vast vast vast majority of gun violence (other than suicides) is gang related. New restrictions on gun ownership ain’t gonna do shit about that.
So 20 years of inaction on enforcing existing laws. Why?
Disparate impact.
Do you know anyone that's been in a mass school shooting? Know anyone that's been shot in one.
Regurgitating some bullshit you've read in the newspaper this week about 20 year anniversary shows a complete lack of knowledge on the subject. (Do some research and you'll know why your ignorance disgusts me). The common theme to these fucking school shootings is mentally unstable people who were mainstreamed instead of institutionalized. That's the solution not gun laws dipshit.
him
You want more gun control asshole pick a different reason than school shootings.
So 20 years of inaction on institutionalizing mentally unstable people is the problem, not guns?
Either Australia and the UK have been successful in locking up mentally unstable people or gun control has kept guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.
As for a different reason, as I said in my OP the US has a much higher rate of homicide that other compatible countries. That seems like another good reason.
So the answer is no. Apparently you didn't do any research beyond reading the front page of the newspaper.
You will have to help me out here. Over the years I have done a ton of research on guns and the effectiveness of gun control. What research are you talking about? You vaguely hinting that there is information to support your point is a weak argument and does not help the debate.
No I'm not hinting. I'm telling you a) you're pathetic if you think Columbine is some seminal school shooting that is the zero datum for school shootings b) you piss me off by trying to traffic off of school shootings c) you're obviously ill-informed about school shooting perpetrators d) did I mention trying to use shot kids is disgusting e) you have no experience it seems.
Re: 20 Years of Inaction [TTF70.3]
[ In reply to ]
TTF70.3 wrote:
DavHamm wrote:
TTF70.3 wrote:
windywave wrote:
TTF70.3 wrote:
Duffy wrote:
DavHamm wrote:
Jim @ LOTO, MO wrote:
We obviously need stricter gun laws--like those in that democRAT-controlled nirvana of Chicago. Chicago -- 2019 Year to Date
Shot & Killed: 113
Shot & Wounded: 472
Total Shot: 585
American politic's .. don't suggest solutions, just try to show why the other guy is wrong...
Personally I would rather see both sides get there way, tighter gun control laws, stiffer penalties, better gun education.. Dem's win, Rep's win... WE ALL WIN.. instead Reps wont support Dems, Dems wont support Reps Nothing happens and WE ALL LOSE.
What specific laws need to be changed? Would those new laws have prevented any previous gun murders if they were in place?
What about enforcing current laws?
Here in a California felons cannot possess firearms. All firearms are registered at purchase and there are background checks done on a state level.
A journalist matched the gun registrations (remember these were “legal” purchases, as in not on the street but in gun stores) with the database of felons and found that thousands of felon bought and registered guns in the state and the state did....
...nothing.
So let’s enforce current laws before further restricting law abiding gun owners. If you pass new laws and don’t enforce them the only people who would follow those laws aren’t the type who kill people.
The vast vast vast majority of gun violence (other than suicides) is gang related. New restrictions on gun ownership ain’t gonna do shit about that.
So 20 years of inaction on enforcing existing laws. Why?
Disparate impact.
Do you know anyone that's been in a mass school shooting? Know anyone that's been shot in one.
Regurgitating some bullshit you've read in the newspaper this week about 20 year anniversary shows a complete lack of knowledge on the subject. (Do some research and you'll know why your ignorance disgusts me). The common theme to these fucking school shootings is mentally unstable people who were mainstreamed instead of institutionalized. That's the solution not gun laws dipshit.
him
You want more gun control asshole pick a different reason than school shootings.
So 20 years of inaction on institutionalizing mentally unstable people is the problem, not guns?
Either Australia and the UK have been successful in locking up mentally unstable people or gun control has kept guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.
As for a different reason, as I said in my OP the US has a much higher rate of homicide that other compatible countries. That seems like another good reason.
I would venture a guess that Australia and the UK have been more successful in treating the mentally ill.
Your comment alone shows how F'd up the US is when dealing with Mental illness. We treat it like its not a medical condition. Your comment implies the solution is to lock people up. Why would you not treat them, like you treat someone with the measles or even leprosy. Leper colonies were eliminated a long time ago. As someone being treated for a tumor in my head, I can tell you chemical imbalances of the brain, are treatable and it is amazing how much of a person's behavior's are controlled by the chemical balance of the body.
I was being facetious. I certainly do not advocate locking up people with mental health issues. I think that Windywave is implying that mentally ill people should be institutionalized.
Not implying... stating it. Some people should not be allowed to roam about.
windywave wrote:
No I'm not hinting. I'm telling you a) you're pathetic if you think Columbine is some seminal school shooting that is the zero datum for school shootings b) you piss me off by trying to traffic off of school shootings c) you're obviously ill-informed about school shooting perpetrators d) did I mention trying to use shot kids is disgusting e) you have no experience it seems.So still name calling and not stating what you think. What is your point? What am I so ignorant of?
a) When I saw the headline that it was 20 years since Columbine it made me incredibly sad which is why I posted. I am well aware that there were school shootings before Columbine.
b) in what way am I trafficking?
c) mental health is part of the problem with mass shootings. When it comes comes to the high US homicide rate, mental health is a very small part of the problem
d) I am not trying to use shot kids, I am advocating for action to stop kids getting shot.
e) I have no experience of some one being shot in a school shooting. Does that I mean that I am not allowed to express an opinion?