WTH is wrong with some people??? Shooting at CT Elementary School - Page 45 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Brian Carlton · #**661** 12-18-2012, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

I really fail to see how any rational person can assume that there is some value in this rule.
Oh, yes, you can arrest them of course, but to do that you'd have to have police officers stationed at every school checking everybody who comes within a thousand feet of it.

Never will be enough police so it's a nonsense rule to begin with. Not to mention the fact that as has been stated it simply prevents law abiding individuals who might have been able to stop whackjobs from doing so.

It is in fact a particularly stupid rule in my opinion.

- Peter.

Say you, Peter, are carrying (as you typically would) and you bring your kid to school. Just luck of the draw, you get stopped near the school for three over the limit...........happens.

You've got to tell the officer that you've got the weapon on you.............

Guess who goes to jail for, probably, a six month period.

Txjake · #**662** 12-18-2012, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jorn

I don't know about you but when I was in school there were no obstacles, I was always a step a head of the teachers. If there were guns in my school I would have gotten my hands on them, just for fun and out of curiosity.

1. wow, it must be a burden to have been so smart in a world full of stupid teachers

2. Bull****

pj67coll · #**663** 12-18-2012, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

Say you, Peter, are carrying (as you typically would) and you bring your kid to school. Just luck of the draw, you get stopped near the school for three over the limit...........happens.

You've got to tell the officer that you've got the weapon on you.............

Guess who goes to jail for, probably, a six month period.

Well, first off, I don't carry. Have not since I left SA. I own about 25 guns and live in one of the most violent cities in the US but since I arrived here I've never felt the slightest need to carry a gun for self protection. Second, I don't drink so even if I were carrying I would not be in that situation and quite frankly I really don't care about someone who is. If you decide to carry a gun around on your person you better ramp up your responsibility level quit a bit, I would have thought that would be self evident. If you're too stupid to do so you shouldn't be carrying a gun in the first place.

- Peter.

Txjake · #**664** 12-18-2012, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Time for complete firearm registration.
Possessing an unregistered weapon, serious consequences, prison time.
Having your weapon used in a crime by any person and you are on the hook as well.
Accidental shootings due to negligence revokes your right to own firearms.
Sales of unregistered weapons, huge prison time.

Besides the Second Amendment, what other part of the Constitution do you want to demolish? How about those pesky women? Why should they vote? Oh and lets get rid of the right to free speech: much easier for the government to take care of us without people carping about their "rights"

pj67coll · #**665** 12-18-2012, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I believe emotion will triumph over reason, and the government will take this "opportunity" to take away more liberty while promising more peace.

I am coming to grips with the reality that the country has changed. Freedom and liberty are no longer valued by the great mass of the populace. Security, safety, and having others provide for their needs ( wants/ demands) are the current desires.

Unfortunately I think there's a lot of truth in what you say.

- Peter.

cmbdiesel · #**666** 12-18-2012, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

You're exactly correct! The gun grabbers don't even have the decency to wait until after the funerals to start on this.

At least the pro-bazooka crowd has the decency to wait until the bodies are cold before starting the hand-wringing and moaning....

The biggest thing I am getting from this thread is the irrational nature of many pro-gun people. Y'all can't even discuss with reason the issues facing our society. Knee-jerk immediately into 'the great gun grab', profess that anyone who has a concern about the ease of weapons falling into the wrong hands is a commie pinko, and wildly speculate that these sick people would have used cars or box cutters with equal effectiveness....

You will have yourselves to blame when society determines that guns and the people that own them are predominantly dangerous, and in need of more stringent control.

cmbdiesel · #**667** 12-18-2012, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

I really fail to see how any rational person can assume that there is some value in this rule.
Oh, yes, you can arrest them of course, but to do that you'd have to have police officers stationed at every school checking everybody who comes within a thousand feet of it.

Never will be enough police so it's a nonsense rule to begin with. Not to mention the fact that as has been stated it simply prevents law abiding individuals who might have been able to stop whackjobs from doing so.

It is in fact a particularly stupid rule in my opinion.

- Peter.

Glad your opinion is far away from where I live.

Brian Carlton · #**668** 12-18-2012, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Well, first off, I don't carry. Have not since I left SA. I own about 25 guns and live in one of the most violent cities in the US but since I arrived here I've never felt the slightest need to carry a gun for self protection. Second, I don't drink so even if I were carrying I would not be in that situation and quite frankly I really don't care about someone who is. If you decide to carry a gun around on your person you better ramp up your responsibility level quit a bit, I would have thought that would be self evident. If you're too stupid to do so you shouldn't be carrying a gun in the first place.

- Peter.

Sorry..........I meant 3 over as in 23 mph in a 20 mph school zone.

I do find it curious that you don't carry anymore. The random acts of violence in stores, schools, etc. is not decreasing and you're a sitting duck if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time.

We cannot get a full carry here but I often muse if I would be better or worse if I had one.

cmbdiesel · #**669** 12-18-2012, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Well, first off, I don't carry. Have not since I left SA. I own about 25 guns and live in one of the most violent cities in the US but since I arrived here I've never felt the slightest need to carry a gun for self protection. Second, I don't drink so even if I were carrying I would not be in that situation and quite frankly I really don't care about someone who is. If you decide to carry a gun around on your person you better ramp up your responsibility level quit a bit, I would have thought that would be self evident. If you're too stupid to do so you shouldn't be carrying a gun in the first place.

- Peter.

I would imagine he meant 3mph over the speed limit....

Yes, personal responsibility does need to be ramped up whenever guns are involved, but sadly this does not seem to be the case.

jplinville · #**670** 12-18-2012, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Reagan-era cuts slashed mental health care

If you google you will find numerous articles related to the Reagan era cuts to mental health funding. this is just the first article listed. The above institution happened to close before them but I believe a lot more closed afterward.

Actually, if you look at the patient's rights movement that started in the '60's, they started closing places down, not Reagan. They forced the issue to make it illegal to forcibly treat patients. They began righting guidlines which were used to determine if someone could take care of themselves, such as washing themselves, cooking, etc. Once they were able to get people to that level, they were released from the facility.

Reagan merely cut wasteful funding for care that was no longer being given in the mental health field. That money wasn't meant for research, it was meant for care, and these people were getting to the point that the facilities no longer needed to care for them, according to the guidelines.

Had the mental health community been proactive, instead of reactive, then the cut backs would have still happened, but funding would have been transferred to another "account" to fund their projects. Ultimately, funding for these places came from state funding, not Federal funding.

Mental institutions

Quote:

In the first half of the 1900s asylums (or ‘mental hospitals’) became testing grounds for controversial treatments such as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and lobotomy. These methods helped some patients function again, but they irreparably harmed others. Such therapies became widely used because doctors and nurses wanted to offer patients cutting-edge treatment. ECT and lobotomy, however, reinforced an old and persistent image of asylums as intimidating places of last resort.
Many mental hospitals closed in the 1970s and 1980s. This was due to pressure from the antipsychiatry movement, feminist criticism, ex-patient activism and political suspicion of large, unaccountable institutions. Other mental hospitals were converted to ‘short-stay’ treatment centres - a policy enabled by new psychiatric drugs. In the UK this was called ‘care in the community’.
Many patients were left homeless. Others, especially people with profound intellectual disability or brain damage, remain institutionalised in ‘care homes’ their entire lives. Such patients and ex-patients depend on loved ones or charity to weather political and economic changes. People without such shelter are often forgotten. This distantly echoes the situation of people called ‘mad’ in the Middle Ages.

cmbdiesel · #**671** 12-18-2012, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Txjake

Besides the Second Amendment, what other part of the Constitution do you want to demolish? How about those pesky women? Why should they vote? Oh and lets get rid of the right to free speech: much easier for the government to take care of us without people carping about their "rights"

Wow, Mr Strawman strikes again.....

Please inform me how registration impedes your right to own a firearm?

News flash, more women support gun control than men.

Are not your 1st Amendment rights to free speech tempered with restrictions?

TwitchKitty · #**672** 12-18-2012, 10:32 AM

Anti-gun zealots are absolutely the best gun salesmen in the world. When gun control is a hot topic, gun sales skyrocket. I bet you can call gun suppliers now and they are already sold out of many items and prices are up on others. With gift buying season here, coupled with gun control fever, I bet this will be the hottest gun sales season ever. Those ATF background check computers are probably just a hummin'. I predict record sales numbers in some areas.

Propaganda and marketing are the same thing. The old saying goes something like: "no bad publicity".

TwitchKitty · #**673** 12-18-2012, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Wow, Mr Strawman strikes again.....

Please inform me how registration impedes your right to own a firearm?
News flash, more women support gun control than men.

Are not your 1st Amendment rights to free speech tempered with restrictions?

Already answered. Why ask the question if you refuse to see the answer?

I know.

elchivito · #**674** 12-18-2012, 10:42 AM

I'm going way out on a limb here. Nothing is going to change that will make a substantial difference. Democrat pols know that a serious effort towards restricting access to firearms will queer their chances in '14.
Not saying that's good. Just saying.