Anti-social and introversion are not the same thing. The "social" part doesn't refer to talking with people; it means being party of a society and respecting those boundaries.JohnG@lt wrote:
Because psych tests are utterly ridiculous as a requirement. Approximately 1/3 of the population is classified as anti-social by shrinks but they're simply introverted by nature. Another segment of the population has been branded with depression. If you allow psych testing you open up the floodgates to deny people for all sorts of 'mental disorders' that make people 'abnormal'.Turquoise wrote:
I totally agree, and honestly, I don't understand the opposition to this.EVieira wrote:
Then why can't you take a proficiency/psych test too? If you can say who can or can't be eligible for a constitutional right based on a background check, then applying a couple of tests shouldn't be a problem.
In an incredibly rare amount of cases.lowing wrote:
We know guns are not used in self defense, you are not allowed to. but are guns used by criminals in England?presidentsheep wrote:
The same can be said of my beliefs and opinions, I live in a society where guns aren't used or needed in self defence. Yet somehow that makes me the ignorant one? Try to get that your country is not the only one on the planet.DBBrinson1 wrote:
At this point we're just banging our head on the wall trying to convey our beliefs and opinions. This kid is smugly ignorant and unwilling to accept the explanations of reality.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
Well, as I said, rights and responsibility go hand in hand so again, mandatory classes I can live with. THe only reason why I think govt. should set the guidelines for these classes is for one reason, a set standard, nothing more. You are preaching to the choir about how inefficient govt. is but it does cover the entire nation and as such it would be logical for govt. to set a standard for the teaching of gun laws per state and gun safety.west-phoenix-az wrote:
If you haven't proven yourself to be dangerous or a threat to society I don't think the government has a right to tell you that you can't have a firearm because they think you're too dangerous, stupid or irresponsible. You shouldn't have to prove to the government that you are capable of safely handling and operating a firearm. I guess most people are taught by someone they know, it may not be a trained expert, but it has worked for a very long time. I don't see the need to change it by letting government set the requirements. The government seems to fuck up a lot more than they fix and any requirements they set on the ownership and possession of firearms is an infringement on the Second Amendment. I do think that if the government was really concerned about people with firearms they would offer a free course to educate the public on proper firearm safety. Or better yet some sort of credit or reimbursement for taking a course from a private (including non-government approved) instructor.lowing wrote:
Well even though I agree owning a firearm for a "good reason" like self defense is a right of a law abiding citizen, that right is steeped in responsibility. Unfortunately just because you might not have ever broken the law, does not necessarily prove you are responsible. You can be an idiot and not be a criminal. I do not want idiots running around with weapons any more than I want a criminal running around with weapons. So I can tolerate gun control in the sense that idiots and criminals are weeded out and education on safety and gun laws are mandatory. If nothing else, it might further protect a citizen, if only from himself, or an unlawful shooting.west-phoenix-az wrote:
One major problem I have with classes, registration and permits is the costs and time involved. It's a right in this country, you shouldn't have to pay to exercise your right. Some people don't have the time or money to jump through the hoops. Just because they can't put aside the time or money doesn't mean they don't have a legitimate need for a firearm. The gun and ammo costs enough as it is. Lets say your sister had a bad break up with her boyfriend and suddenly feels the need for a firearm. You should be able to give or loan one of yours. Under the law in many places you'd both be breaking the law...... and that ain't right. Plus the government has no business knowing what guns I own, it only makes it easier for them to take them away if they feel the need.As I mentioned above you probably have parents, friends or family that can teach you. You don't have to pay an expert to be taught something.JohnG@lt wrote:
More to the point, if you can't afford a class on how to properly use a weapon, what are you doing buying a weapon in the first place?No you didn't, but it does sound like you're talking about a government approved program.lowing wrote:
I don't have a problem with a private company or the boy scouts offering a certified firearms class. I didn't say the govt. had to offer it.
Don't get me wrong, I think people should get firearm training and education. I just don't think it should be approved or required by the government.
this "i need it to defend myself/family"-shit is extremely naive, imo (that's when it's not outright retarded). it takes lowing to be so sure in ones ability to pass judgement in a matter of seconds on just about anything. so, what i'd really like to see is some statistics about how the guns that are legally owned are being used. everything on guns i happen to google up comes extremely one-sided and generally biased (that's due to my horrible english no doubt). somebody cares to dig up some comparative statistics? - i you know, something like number of uses that have been confirmed and investigated (by the police or smthing) and then found justifiable against number of uses that haven't. anybody?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
i guesspresidentsheep wrote:
In an incredibly rare amount of cases.lowing wrote:
We know guns are not used in self defense, you are not allowed to. but are guns used by criminals in England?presidentsheep wrote:
The same can be said of my beliefs and opinions, I live in a society where guns aren't used or needed in self defence. Yet somehow that makes me the ignorant one? Try to get that your country is not the only one on the planet.
"27 offences involving firearms every day in England and Wales"
april 2001-2002 per bbc
So what happens, you run around stabbing each other instead?presidentsheep wrote:
In an incredibly rare amount of cases.lowing wrote:
We know guns are not used in self defense, you are not allowed to. but are guns used by criminals in England?presidentsheep wrote:
The same can be said of my beliefs and opinions, I live in a society where guns aren't used or needed in self defence. Yet somehow that makes me the ignorant one? Try to get that your country is not the only one on the planet.
Here's the problem with that. The government records crimes, not cases of self-defense.Shahter wrote:
this "i need it to defend myself/family"-shit is extremely naive, imo (that's when it's not outright retarded). it takes lowing to be so sure in ones ability to pass judgement in a matter of seconds on just about anything. so, what i'd really like to see is some statistics about how the guns that are legally owned are being used. everything on guns i happen to google up comes extremely one-sided and generally biased (that's due to my horrible english no doubt). somebody cares to dig up some comparative statistics? - i you know, something like number of uses that have been confirmed and investigated (by the police or smthing) and then found justifiable against number of uses that haven't. anybody?
There's no way you could statistically have an accurate measure of self-defense incidents vs. crimes with legally obtained guns unless the government somehow was watching everyone all the time.
But its a good argument for gun control. Brazil has a crime problem specialy in big cities, but even where crime rates are high, most guns come from previously legally owned sources. If our control were tighter, criminals would have a tougher time getting guns.Turquoise wrote:
gument against gun ownership -- that's an argument against corruption and ineffective laws.Again, that's an argument against their system -- not against guns themselves. I could just as easily point to Switzerland as a country with high gun ownership yet low crime.Bertster7 wrote:
Those figures really don't support that argument at all.A commonly-held belief in Brazil, propagated by the gun lobby, is that guns used to commit crimes were either acquired on the illegal market or diverted from state security forces. In reality, the report finds that:
* 72% of crime guns were once legally-owned
* 65% of registered guns used in crime once belonged to civilians
The report also looks at how the guns were used in crime. Guns that had once been legally-owned were used in
* 78% of armed theft
* 67% of rapes at gunpoint
* 58% of gun homicides
* 32% of kidnappings at gunpoint
You see, most of the break-ins where the home owner has a gun, the gun ends up as part of the loot. Thats because the robber has the advantage, the surprise element.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Turquoise wrote:
Here's the problem with that. The government records crimes, not cases of self-defense.Shahter wrote:
this "i need it to defend myself/family"-shit is extremely naive, imo (that's when it's not outright retarded). it takes lowing to be so sure in ones ability to pass judgement in a matter of seconds on just about anything. so, what i'd really like to see is some statistics about how the guns that are legally owned are being used. everything on guns i happen to google up comes extremely one-sided and generally biased (that's due to my horrible english no doubt). somebody cares to dig up some comparative statistics? - i you know, something like number of uses that have been confirmed and investigated (by the police or smthing) and then found justifiable against number of uses that haven't. anybody?
There's no way you could statistically have an accurate measure of self-defense incidents vs. crimes with legally obtained guns unless the government somehow was watching everyone all the time.
If someone is truly a sociopath there is no way a psychologist will be able to detect it.Turquoise wrote:
It doesn't have to be that strict. You're assuming that the laws have to go to the extreme. There are distinct levels of mental instability. If someone is paranoid schizophrenic, that's much more severe than just basic depression.JohnG@lt wrote:
Because psych tests are utterly ridiculous as a requirement. Approximately 1/3 of the population is classified as anti-social by shrinks but they're simply introverted by nature. Another segment of the population has been branded with depression. If you allow psych testing you open up the floodgates to deny people for all sorts of 'mental disorders' that make people 'abnormal'.Turquoise wrote:
I totally agree, and honestly, I don't understand the opposition to this.
Keeping extremely unstable people away from guns is a good thing. If someone is mildly depressive, there would be no need to prevent them from having a gun.
Surely, you can see the difference in degrees here.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
While getting your weapon stolen is always a risk, it's greatly decreased if you responsibly store your weapons in a secure location.EVieira wrote:
But its a good argument for gun control. Brazil has a crime problem specialy in big cities, but even where crime rates are high, most guns come from previously legally owned sources. If our control were tighter, criminals would have a tougher time getting guns.
You see, most of the break-ins where the home owner has a gun, the gun ends up as part of the loot. Thats because the robber has the advantage, the surprise element.
Gun safes exist for a good reason.
Um... no. A competent psychologist/psychiatrist can diagnose a sociopath pretty effectively. I'm not saying it's always easy, and I'm not suggesting that all current records on mental instability have determined all currently unstable people, however... you have to start somewhere.JohnG@lt wrote:
If someone is truly a sociopath there is no way a psychologist will be able to detect it.Turquoise wrote:
It doesn't have to be that strict. You're assuming that the laws have to go to the extreme. There are distinct levels of mental instability. If someone is paranoid schizophrenic, that's much more severe than just basic depression.JohnG@lt wrote:
Because psych tests are utterly ridiculous as a requirement. Approximately 1/3 of the population is classified as anti-social by shrinks but they're simply introverted by nature. Another segment of the population has been branded with depression. If you allow psych testing you open up the floodgates to deny people for all sorts of 'mental disorders' that make people 'abnormal'.
Keeping extremely unstable people away from guns is a good thing. If someone is mildly depressive, there would be no need to prevent them from having a gun.
Surely, you can see the difference in degrees here.
I guess my general point is that people who are known to be very unstable should not be allowed guns.
I'm not using it as an argument against gun ownership. I'm using it as an argument that gun control in Brazil is enforced rubbishly.Turquoise wrote:
If that's true, then they either must not have effective gun registries, or they have law enforcement that isn't effectively enforcing registries. That's not an argument against gun ownership -- that's an argument against corruption and ineffective laws.Bertster7 wrote:
Interesting you should mention Brazil (which is hardly a country of a comparable level of development). They are quite an interesting case. A few years back they tried to impose strict anti-gun legislation, but the referendum for this failed.Turquoise wrote:
There are other countries with strict gun control that still have a lot of gun crime. Take Brazil, for example.
There has been a lot of research done into the situation in Brazil and a lot of polls regarding this. The opinion on the street doesn't fit in very neatly with your analysis:If obtaining a gun is too easy, then there is not strict gun control or it is not being properly implemented.The research showed that 91 percent of people in Brazil thought that obtaining a gun was too easy and the same number that gun proliferation was a main reason for fear in the country.
Which brings us back to the silly "criminals will have guns so everyone else has to as well" argument. In Brazil, more than 70% of guns used in crime were legally owned.
Therefore Brazil is a poor example of a country where gun control doesn't prevent gun crime, because the implementation of the gun control is what is at fault.
OK - most of the tracable guns in Mexico used in crime come from the US. That doesn't demonstrate that most of the guns used in crime over there aren't from the US. In fact it supports that assertion. The main source for that claim is the Mexican police - who are the ones who are at the crime scenes there and tracing the guns.Turquoise wrote:
Again, that's an argument against their system -- not against guns themselves. I could just as easily point to Switzerland as a country with high gun ownership yet low crime.Bertster7 wrote:
Those figures really don't support that argument at all.A commonly-held belief in Brazil, propagated by the gun lobby, is that guns used to commit crimes were either acquired on the illegal market or diverted from state security forces. In reality, the report finds that:
* 72% of crime guns were once legally-owned
* 65% of registered guns used in crime once belonged to civilians
The report also looks at how the guns were used in crime. Guns that had once been legally-owned were used in
* 78% of armed theft
* 67% of rapes at gunpoint
* 58% of gun homicides
* 32% of kidnappings at gunpointNot true.Bertster7 wrote:
Banning guns vastly reduces the number of guns on the streets and slashes gun crime. Although in some countries with strict gun laws, they have trouble enforcing them because guns can be illegally obtained from other countries with more outmoded views on gun control - like Mexico, where most of the guns used in crime have been legally purchased from the US.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04 … xico-come/
It's Fox News, but it's been corroborated with other sources.
Whatever way you look at it, the gun laws in the US are causing problems for Mexico - though it's not like Mexico don't cause enough problems for the US...
Turq is pretty correct on this issue. The problem with sociopaths and others with psychological problems is that you usually don't get them into the office of a professional until after they've committed a crime or had some major life event like that.Turquoise wrote:
Um... no. A competent psychologist/psychiatrist can diagnose a sociopath pretty effectively. I'm not saying it's always easy, and I'm not suggesting that all current records on mental instability have determined all currently unstable people, however... you have to start somewhere.JohnG@lt wrote:
If someone is truly a sociopath there is no way a psychologist will be able to detect it.Turquoise wrote:
It doesn't have to be that strict. You're assuming that the laws have to go to the extreme. There are distinct levels of mental instability. If someone is paranoid schizophrenic, that's much more severe than just basic depression.
Keeping extremely unstable people away from guns is a good thing. If someone is mildly depressive, there would be no need to prevent them from having a gun.
Surely, you can see the difference in degrees here.
I guess my general point is that people who are known to be very unstable should not be allowed guns.
No. As previously pointed out, national per capita knife homicide rates in the UK are lower than in the US.lowing wrote:
So what happens, you run around stabbing each other instead?presidentsheep wrote:
In an incredibly rare amount of cases.lowing wrote:
We know guns are not used in self defense, you are not allowed to. but are guns used by criminals in England?
Ultimately what happens is we have far fewer people killing each other. Which I think is a good thing.
Well, if we're debating gun control techniques, I would agree that Brazil's system seems to be ineffective. I would also suggest that the disparity of gun control laws among U.S. states also makes it ineffective here. It should probably be a federal issue rather than a statewide one.Bertster7 wrote:
I'm not using it as an argument against gun ownership. I'm using it as an argument that gun control in Brazil is enforced rubbishly.
Therefore Brazil is a poor example of a country where gun control doesn't prevent gun crime, because the implementation of the gun control is what is at fault.
And it's politically motivated. Mexico likes to blame the U.S. for its problems just like America does the same with Mexico.Bertster7 wrote:
OK - most of the tracable guns in Mexico used in crime come from the US. That doesn't demonstrate that most of the guns used in crime over there aren't from the US. In fact it supports that assertion. The main source for that claim is the Mexican police - who are the ones who are at the crime scenes there and tracing the guns.
The reality of the matter is that Mexico's own systems fail. Guns enter Mexico from a lot of sources, so they can't just blame us, nor can they prove that the majority come from us.
To a degree, yes. Arizona would appear to be very lax in its gun control.Bertster7 wrote:
Whatever way you look at it, the gun laws in the US are causing problems for Mexico - though it's not like Mexico don't cause enough problems for the US...
What he said.Bertster7 wrote:
No. As previously pointed out, national per capita knife homicide rates in the UK are lower than in the US.lowing wrote:
So what happens, you run around stabbing each other instead?presidentsheep wrote:
In an incredibly rare amount of cases.
Ultimately what happens is we have far fewer people killing each other. Which I think is a good thing.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
but some cases are being registered and looked into, as parts of crime cases, right? is there statistics about that? that would probably give us a better picture, however partial, than all those "of people who took our survey, 78% said they used their gun in a life threatening situation"-crap. what else do those idiots expect all the lowings who took the bloody survey to say ffs?Turquoise wrote:
Here's the problem with that. The government records crimes, not cases of self-defense.Shahter wrote:
this "i need it to defend myself/family"-shit is extremely naive, imo (that's when it's not outright retarded). it takes lowing to be so sure in ones ability to pass judgement in a matter of seconds on just about anything. so, what i'd really like to see is some statistics about how the guns that are legally owned are being used. everything on guns i happen to google up comes extremely one-sided and generally biased (that's due to my horrible english no doubt). somebody cares to dig up some comparative statistics? - i you know, something like number of uses that have been confirmed and investigated (by the police or smthing) and then found justifiable against number of uses that haven't. anybody?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Federally licensed dealers are required to call in for a background check or record your permit information.EVieira wrote:
Aren't background checks mandatory?
Private transactions (citizen-to-citizen) vary from state to state. In Arizona (and probably many states) private transactions do not require a background check or any form of record keeping.
Some refer to the free trade of firearms between citizens as "The Gun Show Loophole". It doesn't have anything to do with gun shows. Dealers at gun shows are still required to perform the background check or record your permit information, its a requirement of being a licensed dealer.
This question is asked on the "Over-the-Counter Firearms Transaction Record" (ATF Form 4473) that dealers are required to have you complete:
If you answer yes to this question the dealer cannot complete the transaction.11.F. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
I have minimal faith in Freud's industry ever effectively being able to stop violence such as the Loughner crime even if they had the power to screen every American citizen. Like I said previously in this thread, shrinks deserve about as much respect as drug dealers.DesertFox- wrote:
Turq is pretty correct on this issue. The problem with sociopaths and others with psychological problems is that you usually don't get them into the office of a professional until after they've committed a crime or had some major life event like that.Turquoise wrote:
Um... no. A competent psychologist/psychiatrist can diagnose a sociopath pretty effectively. I'm not saying it's always easy, and I'm not suggesting that all current records on mental instability have determined all currently unstable people, however... you have to start somewhere.JohnG@lt wrote:
If someone is truly a sociopath there is no way a psychologist will be able to detect it.
I guess my general point is that people who are known to be very unstable should not be allowed guns.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I suppose it could serve fairly well for anecdotal purposes, but it's not going to hold any weight in a debate over policy.Shahter wrote:
but some cases are being registered and looked into, as parts of crime cases, right? is there statistics about that? that would probably give us a better picture, however partial, than all those "of people who took our survey, 78% said they used their gun in a life threatening situation"-crap. what else do those idiots expect all the lowings who took the bloody survey to say ffs?Turquoise wrote:
Here's the problem with that. The government records crimes, not cases of self-defense.Shahter wrote:
this "i need it to defend myself/family"-shit is extremely naive, imo (that's when it's not outright retarded). it takes lowing to be so sure in ones ability to pass judgement in a matter of seconds on just about anything. so, what i'd really like to see is some statistics about how the guns that are legally owned are being used. everything on guns i happen to google up comes extremely one-sided and generally biased (that's due to my horrible english no doubt). somebody cares to dig up some comparative statistics? - i you know, something like number of uses that have been confirmed and investigated (by the police or smthing) and then found justifiable against number of uses that haven't. anybody?
Tom Cruise would agree with you.JohnG@lt wrote:
I have minimal faith in Freud's industry ever effectively being able to stop violence such as the Loughner crime even if they had the power to screen every American citizen. Like I said previously in this thread, shrinks deserve about as much respect as drug dealers.DesertFox- wrote:
Turq is pretty correct on this issue. The problem with sociopaths and others with psychological problems is that you usually don't get them into the office of a professional until after they've committed a crime or had some major life event like that.Turquoise wrote:
Um... no. A competent psychologist/psychiatrist can diagnose a sociopath pretty effectively. I'm not saying it's always easy, and I'm not suggesting that all current records on mental instability have determined all currently unstable people, however... you have to start somewhere.
I guess my general point is that people who are known to be very unstable should not be allowed guns.
Seriously though... what's your beef with psychology and psychiatry? Do you have a background in it? I'm assuming not, since you mentioned Freud.
Another problem with firearm self-defense statistic is the amount of crimes that are stopped or prevented without a shot being fired. These often go unreported.
Another thing many don't think about is the use of a firearms to defend against animal attacks, which is also not uncommon.
Another thing many don't think about is the use of a firearms to defend against animal attacks, which is also not uncommon.
My beef is that the primary drive of the industry is to force conformity to some 'normal'.Turquoise wrote:
Tom Cruise would agree with you.JohnG@lt wrote:
I have minimal faith in Freud's industry ever effectively being able to stop violence such as the Loughner crime even if they had the power to screen every American citizen. Like I said previously in this thread, shrinks deserve about as much respect as drug dealers.DesertFox- wrote:
Turq is pretty correct on this issue. The problem with sociopaths and others with psychological problems is that you usually don't get them into the office of a professional until after they've committed a crime or had some major life event like that.
Seriously though... what's your beef with psychology and psychiatry? Do you have a background in it? I'm assuming not, since you mentioned Freud.
That and it's not real science.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2011-01-13 12:05:23)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
locks - dogs - lights - fences - alarms - tasers - pepper spray - Folding Entrenching tool - Knives - M80 with fuse taped over Bic lighter - snowplows - Big horses - there are tons more I suspect, why ? sounds like a new post.Pug wrote:
Are other things besides guns used in self defence in your country?presidentsheep wrote:
The same can be said of my beliefs and opinions, I live in a society where guns aren't used or needed in self defence. Yet somehow that makes me the ignorant one? Try to get that your country is not the only one on the planet.
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2011-01-13 12:05:19)