Four kids, two adults shot dead near Houston

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Don't forget, current gun laws have reduced gun crime significantly. Oh wait that doesn't gel with the rest of your rhetoric since you are advocating for more gun laws... Hmm...

You are correct, gun laws have reduced crime, so why stop? have we reached an acceptable amount of violence and murder? Or can we do better? Can't we always do better?

Last time I checked the phrase wasn't "If at first you don't succeed [snip] it" it's "try try again". This is seriously the best we can do?

a reply to: HauntWok

but the thread isn't about DUI, or motor vehicle safety..

it's about dead people in texas, and your delusional ranting, and attempts to paint all gun owners as blood-thirsty homicidal maniacs....

nice deflection.

a reply to: HauntWok

and then after guns are gone, what next? hammer ban? bat ban? knife ban? ..perhaps we should just start cutting off people's limbs? after all, you can kill people with them...

how many things will need to be taken away, before violence is at an acceptably low level for you?

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Don't forget, current gun laws have reduced gun crime significantly. Oh wait that doesn't gel with the rest of your rhetoric since you are advocating for more gun laws... Hmm...

You are correct, gun laws have reduced crime, so why stop? have we reached an acceptable amount of violence and murder? Or can we do better? Can't we always do better?

Last time I checked the phrase wasn't "If at first you don't succeed [snip] it" it's "try try again". This is seriously the best we can do?

Here's the deal buddy. As you get closer and closer to approaching zero occurrences, the effort and laws required to get there go up exponentially while the return for this is a few less statistics than before. The gains continually decrease while the effort goes up exponentially. Eventually you have to step back and say, is the reward worth the effort? If I make this one more law for gun control to get 100 or so less gun fatalities a year, is it worth it if by doing so I punish countless amounts of law abiding citizens for it? That is the territory that you are striding in. You clearly are in the ends justify the means camp so I can see you always saying yes to that previous question because you have a skewed idea of gun ownership and the type of people who own guns.

originally posted by: HauntWok


Yes, we get the idea, no laws do anything at all ever, so why have laws at all? I mean since no law ever has ever stopped anything from being done.

Chicago, LA. New York, New Jersey........ do I need to say more?

And the laws around other things, have nothing to do with a Right outlined directly by the Constitution.

And I may present Detroit. A city that has had a long standing history of strict gun laws. Over the last year, those laws have been pushed back to closer alignment with the Constitution, and crime has dropped.

a reply to: Daedalus

Who is saying anything about ban? Why do I constantly have to repeat that Daedalus? When are you going to get over that? That's dishonest Daedalus, I don't want a gun ban, just better more effective gun control measures to make sure that guns aren't getting into the hands of people that would use them for harm.

Why ban a gun? It's an inanimate object. Furthermore:

Hammers have utility beyond being a weapon.

Bats have utility beyond being a weapon.

Knives have utility beyond being a weapon.

Guns have absolutely no utility beyond being a weapon.

a reply to: macman

And I may present Detroit. A city that has had a long standing history of strict gun laws. Over the last year, those laws have been pushed back to closer alignment with the Constitution, and crime has dropped.

No macman, the drop in crime in Detroit isn't due to less gun laws, it's due to less people in that city. There are less than 700,000 people living in Detroit anymore.

Less people, less crime.

a reply to: HauntWok

Again, for like the hundredth time.

Please propose something that doesn't further infringe on people's rights.

a reply to: HauntWok

Please, go tell that to the Chief of Police.

And we are talking percentages.


Man, I understand your a Progressive, but come on.

originally posted by: HauntWok
Guns have absolutely no utility beyond being a weapon.

That's not true. A gun doesn't have a singular purpose. In fact, I can think of one use for guns that FAR exceeds the usefulness of using it as a weapon. Using it as a form of persuasion. The threat of force can get people to do many things that they normally wouldn't do. You don't even need to pull the trigger or heck even LOAD the thing to use a gun like this.

a reply to: macman

We have, how about better research for identifying and treatment for mental illness?

Identifying and treating mental illness can have a better effect, without banning a single gun, without keeping people that aren't mentally ill from getting a gun.

a reply to: HauntWok

And, as always. Thanks for addressing only half of a statement.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's not true. A gun doesn't have a singular purpose. In fact, I can think of one use for guns that FAR exceeds the usefulness of using it as a weapon. Using it as a form of persuasion. The threat of force can get people to do many things that they normally wouldn't do. You don't even need to pull the trigger or heck even LOAD the thing to use a gun like this.

It is still a weapon, nuclear missiles are still weapons regardless of them not being used since the end of WWII.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: macman

We have, how about better research for identifying and treatment for mental illness?

Identifying and treating mental illness can have a better effect, without banning a single gun, without keeping people that aren't mentally ill from getting a gun.

Back on the mental illness kick huh? Are you ready to tell us what kinds of mental illnesses preclude someone from owning a gun yet? Have you defined the words crazy and insane yet? I mean if we are going to persecute and discriminate against a group of people, we should have a baseline to guide this by. Last thing we'd want to do is discriminate against our own group right?

a reply to: HauntWok

Go forth on the mental illness research.

When it infringes on peoples rights, which it still does, there is the issue.
Because "mental illness" is still pretty subjective, how does it stay under a "blind" judgement?

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's not true. A gun doesn't have a singular purpose. In fact, I can think of one use for guns that FAR exceeds the usefulness of using it as a weapon. Using it as a form of persuasion. The threat of force can get people to do many things that they normally wouldn't do. You don't even need to pull the trigger or heck even LOAD the thing to use a gun like this.

It is still a weapon, nuclear missiles are still weapons regardless of them not being used since the end of WWII.

Yes but so is a hammer in certain contexts. In other contexts it's called a tool. What's your point? I just demonstrated that a gun can be used in a manner that is non-violent and would therefore classify it as a tool as well, but that doesn't jive with you huh? It ALWAYS has to be a weapon in your eyes... Such inside the box thinking is sad...

a reply to: HauntWok

So, with that.

Either people will need a mental evaluation to purchase a firearm, which is an infringement.

Or, all people will need to go in for a mental evaluation, and that info would be used for purchasing a firearm.


Which is it?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

here you go:

2. Persons with Mental Illness: Thirty-three states and the District of Columbia have laws that restrict access to firearms by persons who are mentally ill. While most states use definitions of mental illness similar to the federal Brady Act81 and its implementing regulations, several states have broadened the category of mentally ill persons who are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms.82

For example, under federal law, persons who are voluntarily committed to a mental hospital are not prohibited from possessing firearms.83 The following states have closed this gap by prohibiting firearm purchase or possession by persons who have been voluntarily admitted to a mental hospital within specified time periods: Connecticut (within the preceding six months), Illinois (until receiving a certification that he or she is not a danger), Maryland (until receiving “relief” from the firearm disqualification) and the District of Columbia (within the preceding five years).84

Several other states define more broadly than federal law those persons who are disqualified from possessing firearms due to mental illness. Illinois includes an extensive list of disqualifying circumstances related to mental illness, including having been a patient in a mental institution, being mentally or developmentally disabled, or being impaired by a mental condition “of such a nature that it poses a clear and present danger to the applicant, any other person or persons or the community.” The phrase “clear and present danger” refers to any person determined by one of a group of designated mental health professionals, school administrators or law enforcement officers to pose a clear and imminent risk of serious physical injury to self or another, or to demonstrate threatening physical or verbal behavior.85 California law also includes a list of disqualifying factors relating to mental illness, including: communicating a serious threat of violence against an identifiable individual to a licensed psychotherapist, or being held for treatment for mental illness for 72 hours, if either event occurred within the last five years. These states also provide a process whereby people in these categories can formally seek to have these designations removed.

Hawaii prohibits possession by any person who is or has been diagnosed as having a significant behavioral, emotional, or mental disorder. Maryland law prohibits any person who is suffering from a mental disorder and has a history of violent behavior against others from possessing a firearm unless he or she has received a certification from the Maryland Health Department stating that he or she may possess a firearm. For more information about mental illness and guns, see our summary on Mental Health Reporting.

smartgunlaws.org...

Will that help?

I get it now, you are all afraid that if harder restrictions against the mentally ill come to pass, you all won't be able to live your fantasy of a real life first person shooter game without the consequences aren't you?

Well, if it were up to me, your fears would be quite well justified. lol

originally posted by: HauntWok
I get it now, you are all afraid that if harder restrictions against the mentally ill come to pass, you all won't be able to live your fantasy of a real life first person shooter game without the consequences aren't you?

Well, if it were up to me, your fears would be quite well justified. lol

What they hell are you talking about??

What is your obsession with video games?? Is that the rough life you eluded to in the Vets thread?

Bud, your a Progressive. We all get that loud and clear.
You don't seem to like the Constitution, and you fear people having firearms because you can't control them.
You are very much at the infant level in life.
Narcissistic because you think everything revolves around how you think the world should be.


No law has stopped a criminal from committing crime. A law basically stops the law abiding citizen and puts a punishment to an action committed by a criminal. Nothing more.
There are already laws on the books for murder, assault and everything else. Yet, those crimes continue, regardless of the method used.