ACTIVE PUNCHER: Time to ban closed fists

originally posted by: lawman27
a reply to: DBCowboy

That's just the Army, right? The Navy would be Victoria's Secret models in Jacuzzi's. For the Air Force I'm thinking trampolines. Whatever, can I volunteer to get between the opposing sides as a peacekeeper, if need be?

It would be the patriotic duty of all Americans to involve themselves with this type of battle.

*sob*

God Bless America!

*salutes*

It's still funny that people compare something like.. punching a guy, with someone walking into a theater and killing two people and injuring seventy. Can a guy punch 70 people in a few minutes, killing 12 and injuring 58.. like happened in the Aurora shooting? Or can he walk into a church and kill 26 people in minutes? So it's not really a fair comparison, is it.

And gun control doesn't instantly equate "taking all guns" from citizens. It can be as simple as much more stringent vetting for anyone who has a gun. Restrictions for people who have had mental issues from owning guns. Perhaps age restrictions from owning guns. There are other solutions that can help, that doesn't include taking weapons from people.

Most people protest not because they want to steal your weapons. They want the government to do SOMETHING... that's it. Because the typical response after another school shooting is.. absolutely nothing. Other than people who own guns running into forums afterwards, to flood the chat with "omg if we have guns this wouldn't happen!" Except people do have guns.. and it keeps happening. And they considered the Texas shooting a "win" because only 26 people were killed before someone injured the gunman.

a reply to: fleabit

With a truck someone in about 15 seconds can kill 86 injuring another 458.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: fleabit

And gun control doesn't instantly equate "taking all guns" from citizens.

How much "gun control" beyond what is already in place be instituted, REALLY?

Please do lay it all out for us what needs to be done beyond what already is.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The National Fisting Association...

Ya gotta love it when a joke makes itself.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

The ONLY thing that needs doing to the firearms law in America is it needs to become impossible for someone with mental health problems to purchase or acquire firearms, without committing a criminal offence, without the person who sold them or provided them to a person with mental health problems, knowingly or not, having committed a criminal offence.

And one final thing. It must become illegal for someone with a level of mental illness which puts them or others in danger, to be out and about in regular society, with all such persons being expected to be corralled by the state, into dwelling places of a secure nature, where they can be treated for what ails them. However, instead of being an offence on the part of the person with the mental illness, to be out and about while possessed of such a psychological malady as would pose a threat to them or others, it must become a criminal offence for which the town, city or state are responsible, and people must go to jail for long periods when in violation of that law.

That law must hold that certain amounts of money are to be spent on secure facilities, comfortable, but highly secure facilities in which people with murderous intent bought on by mental illness, can be housed, potentially for the rest of their entire lives, without charge, but instead on the basis that they pose a continued risk to the public. Note, this is not a gun control law. This is a deranged person control law I am advocating for.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Define "mental illness".

And this draconian initiative where EVERYBODY has to go see mental health hatchetmen, people whom would put EVERYONE on some kind of pharmaceuticals, is crazy.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Well, pick one matey.

Either you let your common or garden disorganised sociopaths walk around free, but have no guns, or you have all the guns you want, but the dangerous lunatics go to the funny farm until they are either no longer funny enough to be there, or remain there for the safety of everyone else in the country. You cannot have any mixture of both, without putting everyone at undue risk of harm.

a reply to: TrueBrit

So now you want to lock up all sociopaths?

You do realize not all sociopaths / psychopaths are actually 'mean', right?

Considering you have total contempt for the brain / mind sciences this is a trip yo.

With a truck someone in about 15 seconds can kill 86 injuring another 458.

Your OP was about someone punching someone else, not about vehicles. It grows tiresome to hear "Ban fists! Ban pens! Ban knives! Ban cars!" Guns are made very specifically for one purpose, unlike the rest of the things that are constantly brought up as a comparison. In the work world, more dangerous activities and equipment demands more rigorous training and safety. Are there OSHA regulations regarding using a paper cutter, and if so, are they anything like the regulations regarding working with live wires, or running a forklift? Of course not. So it stands to reason that having a mechanical device, where its only purpose is to injure or kill another living creature, have more stringent regulations and training around it.

How much "gun control" beyond what is already in place be instituted, REALLY?

Please do lay it all out for us what needs to be done beyond what already is.

I am not a regulator nor an expert, you can't expect me to lay it "all out" for you. But even me, a layman, can see that guns are too easy to obtain. Far too easy. And even legal channels of buying guns are poorly handled. How many times have we now heard about a gun used in a mass shooting, was purchased by someone who had a sordid past, criminal investigations, or anger management issues, but was still able to easily obtain a weapon?

Also purchasing a multitude of weapons should fall under some sort of oversight to ensure they are not being hoarded for use in a mass attack. Many of these attacks were made by people who were stockpiling weapons (and bomb materials).

Define "mental illness".

So as a for-example, the guy involved in the last school shooting had major anger issue. He was kicked out of school. And his schoolmates thought he would be exactly the sort of person to carry out that sort of attack. But.. no red flags, no issues buying a gun. I agree with you that you have to be very careful about a slippery slope, but I still think something should be done. Doing NOTHING at all won't fix what actually is a very real problem.

What is your suggestion? That nothing is done.. ever? That hey.. people dying is just the price they have to pay for other people's right to own guns, no matter how angry, mentally unstable, or conditioned they are by groups they may belong to? That just seems like a really crappy solution.

a reply to: fleabit

Its already set where felons cant legally get one. Note that "felon" could involve a myriad of "crimes" not even remotely violent. Meaning its already overkill by certain metrics.

I kept seeing headlines that by several metrics that dude should have been shut down but wasnt. Meaning... cant blame the guns.

The truck point is valid. Someone wants to kill they're going to get er done. The fists thing, is actually a serious issue, but also highlights how absurd some of the teeth gnashing over Gun CONTROL really is.

a reply to: fleabit

My suggestion is we instead of equate MSM over-reporting with actual statistical analysis. And we actually look at the statistics. 10-20 attacks per year when there's over 100,000 schools, I'm shocked its only 10-20 just going by Murphy's Law alone.

Interesting

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Really? I respect neurology, because it is a hard science. I do not respect psychology much, because it is a soft one.

But the reality is that sane people are not running around shooting up waffle houses in the nude, or slaying classes full of students, or cinemas full of movie goers. I am more than aware that the vast majority of people who suffer from a mental illness pose no threat to the public, but a statistically important number of the people who have featured in these appalling acts of barbarity that get thrown up from time to time, like the Vegas shooter, like Adam Lanza and that lunatic from the Aurora massacre, were either being treated for, or were clearly suffering from one or another SERIOUS mental illness, which a lack of supervision and monitoring did nothing to quell. They were then, having been totally abandoned by the system, permitted to fall into the spiral which lead to their murderous rampages.

The waffle house incident, for example... The individual in question had behaved in such a manner previously, that the Secret Service had to get involved in some way, such was the threat the man posed. I am not talking about locking up every person who talks to themselves, or has an irrational fear of pocket lint. I am talking about putting people who have shown signs that they are on the way down the path of chaos, into a place where they can actually get the help they need, while the threat they pose to the public is mitigated by their confinement. I am not suggesting barbaric treatments, like electroshock therapy, I am not suggesting that these facilities ought to be the Bedlamesque nightmare fuel that made institutionalised mental healthcare look bad in the old days.

I am suggesting that these locations should be pleasant, run by pleasant people, staffed by compassionate and capable staff, top doctors in the fields of neurology and psychology (for all I have no respect for soft science, it can help people to have someone to direct their self exploration). I am not talking about locking people up in dangerous, drafty, mold infested locales, with barbarian guards and soulless, dead eyed attendants, who sample the pharmacology on offer, more than they do their jobs.

I want the people who would be doing these awful things protected from their illnesses, as much as I want everyone else to be protected from the damage they could do, if left to work out their mental maladies on the flesh and blood of the population. I also think that America should be permitted to engage with the second amendment rights laid down in the constitution. But again, and I would appreciate your response to this specific point:

You cannot have both an armed society, and one which ignores the mentally ill until they commit a mass murder.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: burdman30ott6

You think there's too many guns, well there's about 14 BILLION (with a B) fists across the world.

That's exclusionary and discriminatory to amputees, Thalidomide babies, and those born with Amelia.

Yeah, well you excluded Agent Orange and Depleted Uranium birth defect babies.

I think we have a new class in the UFC.

originally posted by: donnydeevil

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Shamrock6

I've never actually read anything on this site where a member has advocated a total gun ban, can you link me to the evidence please sir?

1st I am for stricter laws regarding guns but not an all out ban.

Stricter laws, eh? In what way? I just purchased a sweet shooting little 20 gauge dbl. coach shotgun, and it took me almost 1/2 an hour to fill out the forms and answer several absurd questions. Then I had to wait whilst my name was entered into however many databases the state of Oregon requires. Apparently, I'm not John Dillinger reincarnated--must say I was some worried about that...In case you don't know who he was. What would you add that would suddenly make all the laws before suddenly more effective?

2nd If anyone has asked for a total gun ban, well then, they are idiots because there are too many guns out there. No possible way to know who has one and who has doesn't because gun owners do not like the government knowing what they have or how many.

Never underestimate magic. A total gun ban would magically stop bad people from doing bad things. That's the logic being used.

3rd It is also idiotic to ask for a gun ban in order to stop mass killings, because mass killings would be needed in order for a get these guns, when there are idiots out there who think that keeping their weapons is more important than their own lives.

Some of those "idiots" have those guns to protect their lives... Many of those "idiots" live well away from town, and the cops should they be required. I myself, living as I do on the edge of town, and a small one at that, am several minutes from "help" should it be required. That's not to mention the chances are good, in rural areas, of running across animals that can be very dangerous, even not so rural areas. I've seen animals in the strangest of places. It should be noted that not all dangerous animals come on four feet...

So people are "idiots" for wanting the tools necessary to defend their lives, should it be warranted?

I've got a puncher ready for any sucker that asks for it.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I get the impression you havent much had to deal with the Cancer industry crowd. I had to with my mom, and only one single person from that entire experience give meany hint of "being a human" (NOT being a bonafide psychopath). Now of course I immediately started rolling off a list of reasons why this is detrimental to actual progress in that field, once that moment of clarity came about those people (a certain point when I had seen enough), also came to mind from my angle machine was that when over half the people expected to be dead within 2 years who besides psychopaths could actually even bear such a industry. This of course creates a positive feedback loop (of the dead serious negative variety) in all the thinking that goes down across their little world. Now factor in the FDA has the doctors everybody by the balls, and Big Pharm has them as total bought and paid for stooges...

...And note that that last bit also drips all throughout the Mental Health industries. If anything, their most hardcore psychotic tendencies are on full display where "their doctors" (including pediatricians) are ready to prescribe small children Ritalin etc before they're even 10 years old.

This is why I asked you to DEFINE "MENTAL ILLNESS". I've heard of one psychiatrist telling someone that their insomnia was "Mental Illness". To this crowd, I've seen some crazy statistics (where following DSM) that in their minds something like 80% of the population have "Mental Illness" that "require" some of their mad science medicine. And this is why this idea of barring "mentally ill" people from guns is insane assuming we're following these people. Which although I havent had short but rich enough dealings with them like the Cancer Industry people, it probably "wouldnt be a gamble" to bet the psychopaths throughout mental health industries isnt much better than that cancer doctor crowd.

So now you say these government facilities need to rake in all the top neurologists / psychologists out there, and set them to handling these obscenely loose terms of "mental illness" (even going by their own standards)...

When what different would that even make when the rest of the .gov doesnt do its job like with Miami Shooting Boy?

Not that your idealism about how that industry should be run is without warrant, but its tantamount to trying to change the entire cancer industry over-night.

So once again in discussions relating to all this mass shooter stuff, I insist we need to stop reading into MSM over-reporting as if it somehow represents actual statistical analysis of the matter. That's right, bring in the Mathematicians! As well as actually learn from mistakes (something that should go without saying BUT....), and so on.

PS: We cant not factor in the purely psychopathic by nature corporations, vested interests in all these save the world discussions that could spin out of this juncture. Changing Big pharma, FDA, etc, does need to be done. Not an easy thing to even approach. Not like with gun manufacturers, or the NRA, much easier to notice, to target them for negative PR campaigns, and so on. But Why The F arent we all tearing down the MSM for their far easier to statistically analyze role (than figuring out with something solid of certainty than se Big Pharms role in wide scale "mental illness") in this in the Mass Shooter Contagion Effect that the MSM is essentially solely responsible for. The same bastards that keep insisting when the shooting happens to everyone fight about guns, not the causes.

I agree with the OP. Fists have been responsible for millions and millions of injuries over the course of MILLENNIA.

Guns are a much more recent issue. Let's ban fists first and then we'll re-group and tackle other types of weapons later.

Let's make America FIST-FREE FIRST!