Jump to content
82flh

new gun regulations coming!

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Cheflife15 said:

Maybe some type of psyche evaluation like they do in Sweden and Norway. 

I can't imagine anything more then a 30 minute conversation with this kid or researching his social history posts could've stopped or delayed him from getting a gun. 

i'm pretty sure you know i'm not trying to "pile on" or flame you.......

 

but......that is both stupid, and downright dangerous. a shrink can talk to any single person for a half hour and find SOMEthing that'll make them appear to be mentally deficient.

 

 crossdresser? mentally deficient. denied.

gay? see above.

got bullied in school? oooohhhh hell no!! you might seek revenge on the bully.

 

 no.........sadly this is a risk we have to take. at least until we convince parents to be parents again, among other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

i'm pretty sure you know i'm not trying to "pile on" or flame you.......

 

but......that is both stupid, and downright dangerous. a shrink can talk to any single person for a half hour and find SOMEthing that'll make them appear to be mentally deficient.

 

 crossdresser? mentally deficient. denied.

gay? see above.

got bullied in school? oooohhhh hell no!! you might seek revenge on the bully.

 

 no.........sadly this is a risk we have to take. at least until we convince parents to be parents again, among other things.

Feel free to voice your opinion. I'm far from soft.  I disagree still.  The shrinks not looking to see if you're gay, cross dress etc. It's to potentially see if you are vengeful, angry, resentful.

 

Self harming doesn't carry the same weight as being gay. 

"Cantonal police don't take their duty doling out gun licenses lightly. They might consult a psychiatrist or talk with authorities in other cantons where a prospective gun buyer has lived to vet the person."

The issue with your Argument is you're doing it from the prospective that every shrink will be a bleeding heart anti gun liberal. For it to work the person would have to be unbiased and work from structured questions.

The current political climate isn't going to  allow us to deal with this.  They are going to continue to ban guns if people are legally buying guns and shooting children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Cheflife15 said:

Feel free to voice your opinion. I'm far from soft.  I disagree still.  The shrinks not looking to see if you're gay, cross dress etc. It's to potentially see if you are vengeful, angry, resentful.

 

Self harming doesn't carry the same weight as being gay. 

"Cantonal police don't take their duty doling out gun licenses lightly. They might consult a psychiatrist or talk with authorities in other cantons where a prospective gun buyer has lived to vet the person."

The issue with your Argument is you're doing it from the prospective that every shrink will be a bleeding heart anti gun liberal. For it to work the person would have to be unbiased and work from structured questions.

The current political climate isn't going to  allow us to deal with this.  They are going to continue to ban guns if people are legally buying guns and shooting children.

those were just examples i used. you gotta remember, if this happened, it'll be govt approved shrinks that we'd hafta see, then we gotta worry about their standards. and those standards could become as egregious(is that the right word?) as our carry permitting process here. that's why i don't like that idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

those were just examples i used. you gotta remember, if this happened, it'll be govt approved shrinks that we'd hafta see, then we gotta worry about their standards. and those standards could become as egregious(is that the right word?) as our carry permitting process here. that's why i don't like that idea.

I see where you are coming from. However we are arguing seperate points. I'm saying what it should be to help the current problem,  and you're arguing what it could become.  This is why I too am hesitant. Because I don't trust they will have our best intentions in mind. In a better world though,  I would be ok with an unbiased and moderate person deciding this. 

Unfortunately everything is a slippery slope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys ever hear of this experiment? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

In summary, completely sane people got themselves institutionalized solely on the basis that they "hear voices." By the end, nearly all were diagnosed with "schizophrenia in remission" and no clean bill of health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, CMJeepster said:

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

/end

Except that they will be,  and the reality is you live in a state where you and everyone else let them be infringed. And if kids keep getting shot in schools,  there will be more infringement. That's the direction this is going. So it's time to start thinking of ways to keep legal guns out of the hands of nutjobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Lawnmower2021 said:

You guys ever hear of this experiment? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

In summary, completely sane people got themselves institutionalized solely on the basis that they "hear voices." By the end, nearly all were diagnosed with "schizophrenia in remission" and no clean bill of health.

Well I mean if they went to the psyche ward because they said they were hearing voices then what else would they be diagnosed with? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Cheflife15 said:

Well I mean if they went to the psyche ward because they said they were hearing voices then what else would they be diagnosed with? 

Of course, but the takeaway is that even though nothing was wrong with them they weren't given a clean bill of health when they were released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lawnmower2021 said:

Of course, but the takeaway is that even though nothing was wrong with them they weren't given a clean bill of health when they were released.

Would you give someone a clean bill of health if they had told you they were hearing voices? It's literally what being schitzo in remission is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cheflife15 said:

For it to work the person would have to be unbiased and work from structured questions.

That is where it will fail.  Either the “structured questions” would themselves be tainted to “err on the side of caution” or the system would be set up such that the doctor would be liable for their decision.. so they would deny by default. 

 

2 hours ago, Cheflife15 said:

The current political climate isn't going to  allow us to deal with this.  They are going to continue to ban guns if people are legally buying guns and shooting children.

Allowing infringements because we fear for worse infringements doesn’t seem a wise strategy and historically ends up going further anyway.  

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are thinking rationally. You are invested. You have an interest in this game.

 

"They" do not. Their entire agenda - depending on how far left they are - would be to limit you to any or all of the following:

One gun (not a handgun, not a semi-auto, not more than 3 rounds, no evil features allowed (black, has a barrel, has a stock, has a trigger, has a scope, has sights, etc))

A single shot shotgun (for hunting, cause thats only reason 2A exists)

A single shot .22 (because .22s aren't lethal, ever)

Muzzleloaders only (cause thats obviously only thing 2A applies to)

No guns for anyone but police and military (the dream)

No guns exist on earth (the betterer dream)

 

Nothing you can say or do will be enough for them, short of those goals. "You want to keep a handgun!?!?! You want to murder children, you monster!" "You want an AR???? You want to kill 500 people a second with your fully semi automatic assault rifle with the shoulder thing that goes up!" "You want a shotgun? You just want to murder innocent Bambis, you monster. You probably murder cats for fun, too."

I fully support opening NICS to everyone, as someone mentioned before, a verified and time-stamped printout or real-time website based option (with no recording of data) (except between buyer and seller).

In past shootings, the government (surprise!) fucked up and failed to add prohibited people to lists of prohibited people. Start there.

I dunno if involuntary commitments are a national disqualifier or if that is a Jersey thing, but I might be ok with that, until minor infractions suddenly become a mental health crisis and it becomes abused.

Red flag laws seem like a good idea if you believe the talking points. In reality, I would guess for every legitimate red flagged person, there are similar amounts of people who have annoyed their neighbors, pissed off an ex or vindictive significant other, or were otherwise not an actual threat to anyone. Presumed guilty with no due process (and no penalty some places for false or misleading reports), but you'll get your day in court "within 10 days" and maybe you'll even get your guns back!

 

Basically, they want to take your guns and you have to let them, or you are no better than a child killing mass murderer psychopath.

 

Want to make a difference? Stop making the psychos who do this shit famous and stop putting them in the news 24/7 with their names and faces plastered everywhere. They want the fame and notariety. They want - I hate to say it - a "high score."

That'll never happen cause news makes too much money off these rare events, and they can't push their agenda without a scared public screaming "We HaVe tO Do sOmEtHiNg!"

But I'd bet it would have more of an effect than any bullshit law proposal that comes out. I mean, Murphy still has a hard-on for .50s, cause we hear of so many $10k guns used in crimes daily in NJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

That is where it will fail.  Either the “structured questions” would themselves be tainted to “err on the side of caution” or the system would be set up such that the doctor would be liable for their decision.. so they would deny by default. 

 

Allowing infringements because we fear for worse infringements doesn’t seem a wise strategy and historically ends up going further anyway.  

You beat me to the punch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Cheflife15 said:

Well I mean if they went to the psyche ward because they said they were hearing voices then what else would they be diagnosed with? 

From the wiki:

The Rosenhan experiment or Thud experimentwas an experiment conducted to determine the validity of psychiatric diagnosis. The participants feigned hallucinations to enter psychiatric hospitals but acted normally afterwards. They were diagnosed with psychiatric disorders and were given antipsychotic medication. [\quote]
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, voyager9 said:

From the wiki:

 

I understand the experiment. My point is, the psychological evaluation is done based on what they said. What other conclusion would they have come to? 

do you think psychologists have no basis to make proper diagnoses because if this study?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cheflife15 said:

Would you give someone a clean bill of health if they had told you they were hearing voices? It's literally what being schitzo in remission is.

if i felt they were well enough to be released, yes. if i wasn't willing to give them a clean bill of health, then their stay would be longer.....till i was willing to do so.

1 hour ago, voyager9 said:

That is where it will fail.  Either the “structured questions” would themselves be tainted to “err on the side of caution” or the system would be set up such that the doctor would be liable for their decision.. so they would deny by default. 

 

Allowing infringements because we fear for worse infringements doesn’t seem a wise strategy and historically ends up going further anyway.  

it is not. it's what got us 3 constitutionally illegal gun control acts, and a constitutionally illegal hughes amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cheflife15 said:

I understand the experiment. My point is, the psychological evaluation is done based on what they said. What other conclusion would they have come to? 

do you think psychologists have no basis to make proper diagnoses because if this study?

They were admitted to the hospital for what they said.  They were diagnosed while in the hospital despite acting normal.  I would expect any diagnosis to be based on an evaluation while they were in the hospital and not biased because of the fact they were there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

 

it is not. it's what got us 3 constitutionally illegal gun control acts, and a constitutionally illegal hughes amendment.

Right.  It’s why the pro-gun side should never compromise.  Todays compromise is tomorrows loophole.  Perhaps if there was trust and actual compromise it would Be different.  I’ll give up A if They give up B.  Instead it is we need to give up A so they don’t take C only to have them take C a year later.  Fuck. That.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2022 at 8:13 PM, Cheflife15 said:

I'm gunna catch some heat here for this but better background checks could be nice in other parts of the country.  Maybe if it cuts down on the crazies getting guns,  they'll be less pressure to take them all away. I'd actually like to see better background checks if it gave us access to unneautered guns. Law abiding citizens without mental health issues should be allowed standard magazines etc. 

Let the flaming begin lol. 

No flaming needed!  It is important to understand that the left won't stop. 

Proof:  New Jersey government wants ammo registration now.  New Jersey already has what anti gun groups consider to be "the answer" (Booker included, wanting it on a national level), that being gun registration.  Either gun registration is not effective enough for New Jersey lawmakers, or they are just making more laws to be spiteful.

 

Either way, it is proof that they won't stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, father-of-three said:

No flaming needed!  It is important to understand that the left won't stop. 

Proof:  New Jersey government wants ammo registration now.  New Jersey already has what anti gun groups consider to be "the answer" (Booker included, wanting it on a national level), that being gun registration.  Either gun registration is not effective enough for New Jersey lawmakers, or they are just making more laws to be spiteful.

 

Either way, it is proof that they won't stop.

They will never stop until all law abiding citizens are prohibited from firearms ownership. If we give an inch, they take a mile. 
 

What exactly has our side received in these ‘common sense’ gun laws that have been passed (and I mean on a federal level)? Name one. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Displaced Texan said:

They will never stop until all law abiding citizens are prohibited from firearms ownership. If we give an inch, they take a mile. 
 

What exactly has our side received in these ‘common sense’ gun laws that have been passed (and I mean on a federal level)? Name one. 

or they'll allow us to own them, just not the ammo.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2022 at 6:48 AM, Displaced Texan said:

I don’t think there is a whole hell of a lot we can do, in the big picture, to prevent crazy people from hurting others. 
Regardless of what tool they choose, if they are motivated enough, they will find a way to cause harm to innocent people.

You have no idea of the horrible damage one can inflict upon others by just using items found in your kitchen cleaning cabinet. 
 

I also do not believe that law abiding citizens should be restricted from their 2A rights because of the actions of a few nut jobs. 
 

I don’t know how to prevent these senseless and crazy acts of violence going forward, but I DO know, that allowing your rights to be restricted in ANY way isn’t, and never will be, the answer. 
 

 

Harden the schools.  Single point of entry, into a secured vestibule.  ID checks for all those entering.  Secure the classroom doors.  Armed school resource officer willing to actually do their job.  Security systems and surveillance systems that are secured but accessible to police.  Training.  

 

But everyone seems to be ignoring the real issues.  Mental health and glorifying those who commit these acts. 

We've had easier access to to guns of the same capabilities for over a century.  The guns or access to them hasn't changed.  What has changed is the amount of people prescribed drugs with suicidal and homicidal thoughts as side effects.  We are the most medicated country in the world.  Its rare to leave the doctors office with them offering to write you a prescription for something.  My SIL is a drug rep.  Its her job top influence doctors to write more prescriptions.  We advertise prescription drugs to ordinary people and tell them to talk to their doctor if they want to be on it.  This is backwards, you don't walk into a doctors office and say I saw a drug on TV that I think might be useful for me.  You walk in, tell the doctor your problems and they should use their training and experience to prescribe the right medication for you if absolutely needed.  Over 1/3 of Americans have been prescribed some form of anti-depressant.  Way more than any other country.  Most of the school shooters have been on some sort of drug with these negative side effects.  They want to hold gun manufactures and the gun store liable when there is a shooting, but not drug manufacturers and the prescribing doctor.  Unfortunately there is too much money to be lost by Big Pharma and the politicians to try to limit what drugs are sold and to whom as well as hold them responsible.  Big Pharma is the largest lobbying industry, 2x bigger then the next biggest industry.  Nothing is going to change until this gets the spotlight it deserves and the demand for change and reform of that industry.  

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/6/14/17458726/depression-drugs-suicide-side-effect  

https://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3697/rr-4

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002271/

https://thewashingtonstandard.com/most-medicated-country-in-the-world-nearly-half-of-americans-have-taken-a-pharmaceutical-drug-within-the-last-30-days/

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-USA-the-most-medicated-country-in-the-world-Why-do-Americans-take-more-prescription-drugs-than-anyone-else?share=1

https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries

 

This person was clearly mentally ill and was looking for suicide by cop, but wanted to be famous so killed defenseless young kids.  The first thing we found out was the shooters name and picture.  Make it illegal to mention the shooters name or image.  Deny them their infamy.  When victims families haven't been notified its illegal to publish their names.  We can do the same with shooters and mass murderers looking for attention and infamy. 

 

Unfortunately its not about the kids, its about power and money, so none of this will happen.  

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ESB said:

Harden the schools.  Single point of entry, into a secured vestibule.  ID checks for all those entering. 

While this may be a practical solution to the dems doing NOTHING about social policy, it is not an ideal remedy.  It smacks of socialist control, "show me your papers" and deeply institutionalizes children.  We'd be putting our children is day prisons, while the bad guys roam free.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

that's fine. then they need to raise the age for joining the military to 21. the age to vote? 21. get a drivers license? 21. sign up to be a cop?21.

Seriously. You can't argue "18-year-olds can't have assault rifles" and have military recruiters in high school at the same time.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...