After Las Vegas massacre, Democrats urge gun laws; Republicans silent
853 replies, posted
[QUOTE=MR-X;52751449]So basically your excuses because a small minority firearms are used in crimes and a small portion of criminal elements misuse their firearms we have to go full nanny state and take away guns?
Then on top of it you state that the institution that we're bound to is corrupt and again your response is to disarm the people?[/QUOTE]
you said "man it's so weird that certain people do this" and i said "this is why those certain people do that"
nowhere in my post did i issue a blanket statement for everyone everywhere, and the main point of my post was "some people don't like living with a constant fear of being shot at."
would you call canada, australia, japan, and other places with tighter gun laws "nanny states"?
yes, i am for stronger gun regulation, but like, way to take what i said to it's ultra extreme, i guess? you [I]really[/I] shouldn't do that to someone else's post.
[QUOTE=gokiyono;52751644]Isn't that what happens in totalitarian shit holes?
But if the military would never go after it's citizens, why would you need guns to defend yourself from the government?[/QUOTE]
The armed forces swear to the Constitution, not to the government. Many of them, dare I say a majority of them, know it's their duty to turn their arms on the GOVERNMENT in the event of something like this, where they are ordered to obstruct the Bill of Rights.
[QUOTE=Ridge;52752781]The armed forces swear to the Constitution, not to the government. Many of them, dare I say a majority of them, know it's their duty to turn their arms on the GOVERNMENT in the event of something like this, where they are ordered to obstruct the Bill of Rights.[/QUOTE]
The Constitution [I]is[/I] the government.
I think what you mean to say is that it's their duty to turn on perhaps people in the government that abuse and break the law of the Constitution.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52754506]The Constitution [I]is[/I] the government.
I think what you mean to say is that it's their duty to turn on perhaps people in the government that abuse and break the law of the Constitution.[/QUOTE]
I thought the constitution was a document telling the government what it is not allowed to do? Still though, a piece of paper telling politicians what they can't do won't be much help if there is no one willing to enforce or fight for it.
[QUOTE=gokiyono;52751644]Isn't that what happens in totalitarian shit holes?
But if the military would never go after it's citizens, why would you need guns to defend yourself from the government?[/QUOTE]
Contingency.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52747426]He explained earlier in the thread, he wants semi auto and detachable magazines banned altogether.
My problem with 'just don't let depressed people have guns' is that it creates a perverse incentive not to seek treatment. My girlfriend wouldn't have sought psychiatric help for her anxiety (diagnosed as depression) if it meant someone would come take away her Walther, and she's not even super into guns. The overwhelming majority of people with disorders like depression aren't suicidal or a threat to others, so it seems like a real sledgehammer solution to categorically deny them a Constitutional right.[/QUOTE]
"Overwhelming majority of people with disorders like depression aren't suicidal"
Gonna need source on that. Depression and suicidal thoughts go hand in hand. Why would you risk leaving them with a gun?
And you categorically deny them because they're high risk. There's a direct correlation between depression and suicide with firearms. The numbers could be reduced with the proper measures.
And this is only depression. This doesn't go into a whole host of mental issues that affect ones rationality and decision making.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52755267]I thought the constitution was a document telling the government what it is not allowed to do? Still though, a piece of paper telling politicians what they can't do won't be much help if there is no one willing to enforce or fight for it.[/QUOTE]
Which is why the 2nd Amendment is relevant again, not because it can be used to overthrow the government, but because if we let them discard it then it shows that this piece of paper isn't so limiting after all. Why stop there when we can make it super easy to stop terrorism and mass shootings by letting law enforcement spy on who they want or go where they want without needing warrants? No more shootings is also for the greater good, right?
[QUOTE=No_Excuses;52756473]"Overwhelming majority of people with disorders like depression aren't suicidal"
Gonna need source on that.[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States"]40,000 suicides in the US per year[/URL]. [URL="https://www.theovernight.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=cms.page&id=1034"]About half[/URL] are people who suffer from depression. 25,000,000 Americans suffer from some form of depression per year (see previous link). That makes the ratio of people suffering depression to people suffering depression who commit suicide about 1250-to-1.
Only a subset of those people will be sufficiently suicidal that they will take their own life if a firearm is available, but not if a firearm isn't available.
And that number is also including people who have been institutionalized, hospitalized against their will, or judged mentally incompetent, and thus would be denied a firearm under current laws anyways.
Abridgment of a Constitutional right over a less-than-one-in-a-thousand chance seems excessive, and far more harmful in creating a perverse incentive not to seek treatment for a disorder that is [URL="https://www.theovernight.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=cms.page&id=1034"]80-90% treatable[/URL].
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.