Firearms/self Defense Discussion

[Grandpa Harley]

More good articles Nivek!

 

I'm curious as to the correlation to higher incidents in gun related crimes and when the Regan administration closed all those mental institutions? I've heard jails have an 80% recidivism rate, yet they never offer/require mental rehabilitation services.

 

The sad part is that these mentally deranged people are participating in raising their own kids. And so the cycle goes on.

 

I've heard of one school that had a bomb threat, and the principal banned back packs and book bags. Even large purses were prohibited, and any purse someone did bring was subject to a search.

80% recidivism in from a population 95% Christian... says a lot, don't it?

 

N,

Anyone with a religious conviction and a taste for fire arms scares the bejesus out of me. Unlike my late father, who was gifted in hand to hand combat (could use nunchuku and throw a knife like noone I know) , I've got a pretty natural ability with fire arms... I just don't see the need to own one, especially with my innate dislike of people. Man has to know his limitations...

[♦ nivek ♦]

Nivek, after participating with you on a thread quite awhile ago, about gun ownership, I did acquire one. However, IDK, there is something about them that scares me. I haven't even looked to see how to load it, much less taken lessons yet.

 

Amanda if you would PM me, and I'll see where I can find an NRA certified Instructor, your area who would swap me professional favors for your training for your firearm. You and your kid(s) (If any) and your SO can take the courses offered.

 

But I will say this. I have a little bungalow in the city and a little cabin in the country. Here in the city, no one has a gun. Really... I bet less than one out of twenty homes have guns in them, and those that do probably only have one. Yet, at my place in the country... EVERYONE has a gun, usually every house has quite a few of them.

 

Folks away from the more centralized services and far away from hospitals and the *nicities* of living in or around the City tend to know how to take care of things themselves. Gun, axe, shovel, sharp pocket knife, water supply, and not having to go to the deli every evening for dinner.. Comes literally with the territory in which you choose to live.

 

Now here's my point. Here in the city, we've recently had the highest amount of homocides we've ever had. Some have been just apparent drive by shootings. That doesn't count the armed robberies and such.

 

Pack rats into a large spot, watch what happens as population pressure goes up. Analogy to human condition similar. More Bi-Peds in same space, the more the odd elements start to surface and dare to commit criminal acts.

 

In the country, there's no crime...NONE! Everyone is really friendly and neighborly, however, I definitely get the feeling that if someone were to break into their house uninvited, they would NOT hesitate to shoot first and ask questions later. Everyone assumes everyone else has a gun there, and IMO, rightly so. Does that say gun ownership has any positive influence on the crime rate? IDK.

 

Out in my rural little town area we have meth and assorted white-shit powder problems. The results are those who choose to steal to pay for things, and take materials to engineer making meth. Makes for a lotta fun responding to still another HazMat situation when some tweeker has knocked valve off 5000 pounds of anhydrous ammonina to score a few 5 pound bottles of it for his cooking project..

We have assorted problems indeed, however most of ours are imported, the folks moving to area having nothing in common, nor caring to, clashing harshly with the *natives*..

 

Will say being known as a househole with big honkin' *vicious* breed dogs and known to have firearms, our hacienda is unmolested. Remember that I espouse multi-layers of defence, not just firearms..

 

Also, regarding a post where you posted an article about police using their armed forces irresponsibly... We just had the police break into a house they had suspected to be a volatile narcotics bust and shot an innocent 90 year old lady, I think by herself, that had nothing to do with illegal activities. Those police officers were arrested.

 

Been all over the RKBA/Fireams news sources. That screwup continues to errode the trust that we once had in our Peace Officers, now Law Enforcement Officers..

 

I slept a lot better before the local Narcotics Enforcement Team got its Cadillac-Gage V-100 amored Personnel Carrier from the Fuds..

 

I am concerned with people who are bi-polar, borderline personality disorders, schizophrenic, DID, and such, that can present a normal fascade and purchase a gun. That's scary.

 

There is a problem that has to be addressed by reason and rationality and not emotional blubberhead-ism as the popular controlled media seems to be doing. They prattle on and whine about things, following what seems to be the agenda of the hoplophobes..

 

Hey! Wait! Lets do this.. Make it so the newschains must have a Five Day Waiting Period and Governmental Permission issued before they can publih.. That'll keep irresponsible reporting to a minimum..

What??? That is blatantly contra the First Amendment..

 

Anyway, you might get idea. There is little political solution-ability for finding exact solutions or every single problem.

 

Mental sanitation is still an inexact science and like everything else human, it is a work in progress.

One thing that I would like to see is that if a person is such a danger to the world around them that they never see another free day outside incarceration again. In favor of wiring off vast expanses of desert and building a Coventry (ref: RAH) -like facility for those who are not safe for the outside world.

 

Canada does not allow guns in their country,

 

Stop. The. Bus. Here. Huh? Where did you find this tidbit of information? Canadastan is not a locked down gunless society.

 

so I wonder what the incidents of massacres like what happened in Virginia and such are there in that country.

 

If I read this correctly you are inquiring into similar murders using fireams in Canada? If so, there have been in recent memory and history such shootings.

 

What trade offs do we make for having the right to bare arms? I'd appreciate your insights into that.

 

Here is the Warrior Philosophers thoughts Amanda:

 

This also points out why I am a gun rights advocate and why it's a valid litmus test for politicians. If you know a politicians views on gun ownership, you have a real good idea of how they view their constituents.

 

Do they believe their job is to "manage" everyone or only control those who disrupt society.

 

Those who don't believe in gun ownership, don't trust the average person to be smart enough to take care of themselves or their community.

 

I didn't used to be a litmus test type of person, but this is one of those issues that really sheds light on peoples views on society, and many times tells more about them than they seem to know themselves.

 

kL

[Vigile]

Does anyone else have the lingering paranoia that if Chrsitians hold this belief as true, that there may be something wrong wiht it?

 

I'm just sayin'

 

Actually, it's not a bad thing that the general population holds an emotional belief about the bill of rights. This helps rally continued support for these rights. Religious-like belief does not have to be a bad thing even if we in our ivory towers care to intellectualize to a greater degree what the word "rights" actually means.

 

I just wish they were as emotional about 1st and 4th Ammendment rights as they are over the 2nd.

[Vigile]

Why does Gun totin' mormons not comfort me?

 

Actually this doesn't bother me in the slightest. I grew up amongst Mormons. They may hold some weird religious beliefs, but they are generally well-balanced members of the community. In Idaho and Utah there are tons of gun-totin' Mormons and life is certainly safer among them by spades than it is amongst the gun toters in SE DC.

[Vigile]

And you'll find a heavy predominance within Federal Services, FBI, DEA, ATFE, Military. That oughta scare you Gramps, an entire cadre of men and women with access to unlimited tech and arms trained, but eventually loyal to Salt Lake and to Brigham's heirs..

 

Kev,

 

You know I support your right to have a gun. I have zero problem with it. Respectfully though, I think that it's a bad argument in this day and age to say that gun owners keep the government at bay.

 

The government has the resources, the organization, and the motivation to make sure that they absolutely hold onto their power. If you piss off the government and they send the FBI, DEA, ATF, et al to your house up their on the desert range, you may take one or two of them with you, but essentually you are going to find yourself in the middle of another Ruby Ridge. Your guns don't strike fear in their hearts. What your guns do is cause them to come at you with way more firepower than you could ever hope to acheive. Political considerations are the only thing keeping the governments off our backs to the tiny degree they are now, not fear of gun owners.

 

JMO

[Casey]

There's a story told about Hitler and what was left of the Trades Unions in Germany when he came to power. What was left of 'em pleaded and begged Himself to leave the May 1 holiday alone. Well, he hummed and ahhed about it for a while and then said that was fine by him, only let it be called "German Worker's Day" or some such. The delegates went away, well satisfied with this magnificent compromise.

 

The very next day Hitler made membership of any Trade Union a crime subject to the death penalty. So the unionists had their hoilday, they just didn't have any unions any more with which they might celebrate it.

 

Moral? Be very wary of politicians and "reasonable compromises"!

Casey

[Vigile]

The risk of being killed by a firearm in the US is higher than in any other Western nation. Of countries outside war zones, the risk is greatest in South Africa, according to a United Nations report.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6562529.stm

 

"Guns Save Lives!" ?

 

That's an interesting statistic, but as I pointed out in detail in the other thread, the difference is negligable. Risk of death by other means vastly, vastly, vastly outranks gun death in all western countries. As I also pointed out, we accept a certain amount of risk in our lives. I have yet had anyone respond to my question:

 

What makes the very tiny level of death by firearm an unacceptable risk to live with in society? Isn't it extreme to think that we can eliminate all risk in our lives?

[Casey]

And you'll find a heavy predominance within Federal Services, FBI, DEA, ATFE, Military. That oughta scare you Gramps, an entire cadre of men and women with access to unlimited tech and arms trained, but eventually loyal to Salt Lake and to Brigham's heirs..

 

Kev,

 

You know I support your right to have a gun. I have zero problem with it. Respectfully though, I think that it's a bad argument in this day and age to say that gun owners keep the government at bay.

 

The government has the resources, the organization, and the motivation to make sure that they absolutely hold onto their power. If you piss off the government and they send the FBI, DEA, ATF, et al to your house up their on the desert range, you may take one or two of them with you, but essentually you are going to find yourself in the middle of another Ruby Ridge. Your guns don't strike fear in their hearts. What your guns do is cause them to come at you with way more firepower than you could ever hope to acheive. Political considerations are the only thing keeping the governments off our backs to the tiny degree they are now, not fear of gun owners.

 

JMO

 

Oh, I dunno. Didn't the British say similar things in 1776? True, you won't win set-piece battles against the Government any more than the original Continentals did, but if there were enough discontented people around, the Government might find itself in one hell of a long guerrilla war. Just my thoughts. And let's not forget the reason the British enacted their Firearms Act of 1920. All the official blether about public safety notwithstanding, as I showed in the thread prior to this, the real reason they enacted it was their fear of a Bolshevik-style revolution. I submit this fact should make one pause to think for a moment.

Casey

[Vigile]

[Oh, I dunno. Didn't the British say similar things in 1776?

 

In 1776 the general population had weapons comparable to the government's weapons. The US is not England in 1776. They have almost infinite more firepower, technology, and organization. With the survelience on US society that exists today, you coudn't even get a large enough group to organize to even make anything like a difference. It would be doomed from the start.

 

As an example, one modern day battle ship put in a time machine back to 1776 could conquer the entire world. And the guns those guys had are not altogether that much different than the guns that American gun owners have in their closet. They work on basically the same principles and were not that much less deadly. What makes gun owners today think that they have a chance in hell of standing up to the kind of technology the government has at her disposal? It's irrational.

 

Worst case scenario would be a devolution into a society something like that which exists in Iraq now. Yes the gorrillas are a bit like a nest of hornets to the military, but every day way more hornets are getting killed than US servicemen. Such a scenario developing in the US is almost assured to never happen. The majority will always support the government because they have been trained to do so. Those with guns will end up being painted terrorists and will meet an ugly fate.

 

In fact you can site Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq as countries that have potentially beaten the US government, but look what happened to those countries. They were pretty much razed to the ground and gorillas were sent to fight from holes in the ground. I wouldn't call that winning one's freedom by any definition of the word.

 

Comparing then to now is comparing apples to oranges.

[Amanda]

I am concerned with people who are bi-polar, borderline personality disorders, schizophrenic, DID, and such, that can present a normal fascade and purchase a gun. That's scary.

 

There is a problem that has to be addressed by reason and rationality and not emotional blubberhead-ism as the popular controlled media seems to be doing. They prattle on and whine about things, following what seems to be the agenda of the hoplophobes..

 

Hey! Wait! Lets do this.. Make it so the newschains must have a Five Day Waiting Period and Governmental Permission issued before they can publih.. That'll keep irresponsible reporting to a minimum..

What??? That is blatantly contra the First Amendment..

 

Anyway, you might get idea. There is little political solution-ability for finding exact solutions or every single problem.

 

Mental sanitation is still an inexact science and like everything else human, it is a work in progress.

One thing that I would like to see is that if a person is such a danger to the world around them that they never see another free day outside incarceration again. In favor of wiring off vast expanses of desert and building a Coventry (ref: RAH) -like facility for those who are not safe for the outside world.

Nivek, these people are mentally sick. It's a lot like cancer of the mind... they can't help it. If we can treat them, then they can become productive citizens contributing to the support of themselves and this country instead of consuming it. Plus, they deserve a life too.

 

There are lots of warning signs by kids at young ages that go unattended. Sure, most of them just live frustrated lives that cause the people around them to be dysfunctional too, even if they don't kill someone. If mental health was pin-pointed as early as possible, and coping skills taught to kids much younger, we may eliminate much of those statistics that put us so high on that fatality list by firearms. We all know that guns don't kill people... people do.

[Asimov]

[Oh, I dunno. Didn't the British say similar things in 1776?

 

In 1776 the general population had weapons comparable to the government's weapons. The US is not England in 1776. They have almost infinite more firepower, technology, and organization. With the survelience on US society that exists today, you coudn't even get a large enough group to organize to even make anything like a difference. It would be doomed from the start.

 

As an example, one modern day battle ship put in a time machine back to 1776 could conquer the entire world. And the guns those guys had are not altogether that much different than the guns that American gun owners have in their closet. They work on basically the same principles and were not that much less deadly. What makes gun owners today think that they have a chance in hell of standing up to the kind of technology the government has at her disposal? It's irrational.

 

If that were true, "terrorism" would have been dead long ago.

[Grandpa Harley]

The risk of being killed by a firearm in the US is higher than in any other Western nation. Of countries outside war zones, the risk is greatest in South Africa, according to a United Nations report.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6562529.stm

 

"Guns Save Lives!" ?

 

That's an interesting statistic, but as I pointed out in detail in the other thread, the difference is negligable. Risk of death by other means vastly, vastly, vastly outranks gun death in all western countries. As I also pointed out, we accept a certain amount of risk in our lives. I have yet had anyone respond to my question:

 

What makes the very tiny level of death by firearm an unacceptable risk to live with in society? Isn't it extreme to think that we can eliminate all risk in our lives?

And, it's an apples an oranges argument that would be best left to the religious. The other causes of death are due to thing that, if they were banned, civilisation would halt... personal motor transport being the biggest. A firearm in a first world country is mostly a luxury or a toy. There are some who need them, living in some god's armpit place 900 miles from any thing that looks like a city, but they are few and far between. I have no problems with Guns per se, but even I can see you're talking nonsense.

[Grandpa Harley]

[Oh, I dunno. Didn't the British say similar things in 1776?

 

In 1776 the general population had weapons comparable to the government's weapons. The US is not England in 1776. They have almost infinite more firepower, technology, and organization. With the survelience on US society that exists today, you coudn't even get a large enough group to organize to even make anything like a difference. It would be doomed from the start.

 

As an example, one modern day battle ship put in a time machine back to 1776 could conquer the entire world. And the guns those guys had are not altogether that much different than the guns that American gun owners have in their closet. They work on basically the same principles and were not that much less deadly. What makes gun owners today think that they have a chance in hell of standing up to the kind of technology the government has at her disposal? It's irrational.

 

If that were true, "terrorism" would have been dead long ago.

Normally a soldier prefers not to die. A terrorist frequently doesn't care. Also a terrorist will hit soft targets, and has a robust attitude to collateral damage and non-combatants dying... in fact the more the better. Soldiers are not terrorists, and are (mostly) careful...

 

Addtionally, terrorsts use explosives. C5 to home brewed nitro to Nitrate Fertiliser and sugar bombs

Folk who say 'Give me freedom or give me death!' are usually sending someone else to die.

[Grandpa Harley]

And you'll find a heavy predominance within Federal Services, FBI, DEA, ATFE, Military. That oughta scare you Gramps, an entire cadre of men and women with access to unlimited tech and arms trained, but eventually loyal to Salt Lake and to Brigham's heirs..

 

Kev,

 

You know I support your right to have a gun. I have zero problem with it. Respectfully though, I think that it's a bad argument in this day and age to say that gun owners keep the government at bay.

 

The government has the resources, the organization, and the motivation to make sure that they absolutely hold onto their power. If you piss off the government and they send the FBI, DEA, ATF, et al to your house up their on the desert range, you may take one or two of them with you, but essentually you are going to find yourself in the middle of another Ruby Ridge. Your guns don't strike fear in their hearts. What your guns do is cause them to come at you with way more firepower than you could ever hope to acheive. Political considerations are the only thing keeping the governments off our backs to the tiny degree they are now, not fear of gun owners.

 

JMO

That's one I agree with...

[Grandpa Harley]

Does anyone else have the lingering paranoia that if Chrsitians hold this belief as true, that there may be something wrong wiht it?

 

I'm just sayin'

 

Actually, it's not a bad thing that the general population holds an emotional belief about the bill of rights. This helps rally continued support for these rights. Religious-like belief does not have to be a bad thing even if we in our ivory towers care to intellectualize to a greater degree what the word "rights" actually means.

 

I just wish they were as emotional about 1st and 4th Ammendment rights as they are over the 2nd.

People who are thinking with their guts and sentiment, not their brains, are skittish, dangerous, and dumb animals, and we both know it. It's called a 'mob'

[♦ nivek ♦]

I am concerned with people who are bi-polar, borderline personality disorders, schizophrenic, DID, and such, that can present a normal fascade and purchase a gun. That's scary.

 

There is a problem that has to be addressed by reason and rationality and not emotional blubberhead-ism as the popular controlled media seems to be doing. They prattle on and whine about things, following what seems to be the agenda of the hoplophobes..

 

Hey! Wait! Lets do this.. Make it so the newschains must have a Five Day Waiting Period and Governmental Permission issued before they can publih.. That'll keep irresponsible reporting to a minimum..

What??? That is blatantly contra the First Amendment..

 

Anyway, you might get idea. There is little political solution-ability for finding exact solutions or every single problem.

 

Mental sanitation is still an inexact science and like everything else human, it is a work in progress.

One thing that I would like to see is that if a person is such a danger to the world around them that they never see another free day outside incarceration again. In favor of wiring off vast expanses of desert and building a Coventry (ref: RAH) -like facility for those who are not safe for the outside world.

 

 

Nivek, these people are mentally sick. It's a lot like cancer of the mind... they can't help it. If we can treat them, then they can become productive citizens contributing to the support of themselves and this country instead of consuming it. Plus, they deserve a life too.

 

There are lots of warning signs by kids at young ages that go unattended. Sure, most of them just live frustrated lives that cause the people around them to be dysfunctional too, even if they don't kill someone. If mental health was pin-pointed as early as possible, and coping skills taught to kids much younger, we may eliminate much of those statistics that put us so high on that fatality list by firearms. We all know that guns don't kill people... people do.

 

 

Amanda...

 

This is the crux of the matter for me, quoting you from above:

 

"We all know that guns don't kill people... people do."

 

That simply is not true. I can't go through each post and hand you the information required to turn your mind from this venue of thinking, but assigning an animal ability, "killing" to an inanimate piece of steel and wood is unusable.

 

If true, one room of my home and grounds would be a literal blood bathed killing zone due to *guns*. Firearms ranges, gunshows, hunting outings, would be horrible places of gore and carnage due to guns.

 

It doesn't happen. Any firearm requires that it be used as designed to make it "kill".

 

Firearm you have will sit comfortably in its storage area until something removes it and in turn compels its use.

*****

That brings us to the mentally unfit. I can and slighty do understand compassion, despite that emotion being rarely used by this mean_old_man.

 

Nivek, these people are mentally sick. It's a lot like cancer of the mind... they can't help it. If we can treat them, then they can become productive citizens contributing to the support of themselves and this country instead of consuming it. Plus, they deserve a life too.

 

Bad analogy, the cancer. Cancer might be cured, most often kills the host. If "they" can't help their actions, "they" need to be separated, given what treatment(s) they might, and again not allowed to mingle in the general population and cause harm.

As far as treatment, somewhere up the pages, Pitchu and I both posted links to unsucessful attempts of chemical behavioural modification that lead to some horrible ends to innocents. Find time to research this, then feel free to comment on "treatment sucesses".

 

As far as a "life"? Hard to give an exact quotient what makes the mentally ill *happy* *content*. Some folks are are seemingly happy under the bridge and do not want intervention in their life. Others are just as useful shooting their eight of heroin, putting on their custom silt tailored suits and going to work. Defining what is "life" and how we are gonna make it "all better" is somthing as far as I can see hasn't happened in professional journals and practices.

 

Does it mean that society doesn't continue to research and try to help those with deficiencies and problems? Not at all.

The Big However is that we as a People do not, should not have to live with those mentally unable to comprehend the damage they do, or are so inclined to commit criminal acts.

 

If a criminal is such as he or she is a threat to the society around them after treatment or incarceration, then "Coventry" as propsed by RAH is my choice. They may live and do in total freedom, separated forever, making a world in which they are harmless to those "norms".

 

My "Big However" is tempered by a lotta time in grade finding and returning to State of competent custody folks "off their meds", and in turn having done harm and injury to the world around them.

I have no precise definition for "insane/crazy/deficient/nuts, etc" other than for those inclined to be a danger to those around them need separated from the herd before they find their way into the front pages.

Again, as posted above, and seemingly ignored, "There is no exact medical or social answer at this time".

 

The question begs for me: "How many anti-social homicidal mentally challenged people do you sponsor living in your home?"

 

Quite a few folks known to have murdered, and some in spectacular fashion, others just "nuts". If we will not execute retribution on them, it is time to ensure that they are never again free to become predators again.

Simply lack the compassion to understand their complex headaches, nor do I care what caused them to do their henious criminal activities.

 

VT-like murders are a scarey part of living in a society mostly free of nannies and proctors telling us every thing and -way to go and do. There are no warranties of "safe and secure". Again, I'll repeat that "Guns Save Lives". when the time for you and yours to be protected ever comes, you will remember the words "a 38 Special revolver in your hands beats the hell outa the phone and 911".

 

No easy answers living in this world, but having the means to protect self and family is the paramount Civil Right.

 

kL

[Grandpa Harley]

Let me get this straight...

 

"VT-like murders are a scarey part of living in a society mostly free of nannies and proctors telling us every thing and -way to go and do."

 

So, Virginia Tech. is a not only a sign of civilisation, but a healthy one?

[Devilin]

Guns Don't Kill People, Rappers Do.

 

I'm rather bemused despite hard scientific evidence the more guns in any given society the more people are killed

Yet you put forward the argument "Guns Save Lives!" why not add "Jesus saves lives" it would make as much sense

Check the statistics guns kill people lots and lots of people guns take lives

Virginia Tech being an example if every student was carrying gun you'd sill end up with a dead person. probably more than one. if nobody carried guns then you'd have no dead people. number of children killed by a mad gunman in a British schools post handgun ban zero

[♦ nivek ♦]

Vig,

 

Grew up lds and with a Dad who was Naval Communications/Intellience.

 

Met over years more than a few folks in various ABC agencies with whom the Old Man worked with. Majority that congregated at the weekly BBQs were lds. Over the years found out these were more like meetings of the Elders than off-duty social times.

 

I don't have the numbers handy, will look, fbi has a large population of the lds, other agencies similar.

 

I don't fear the lds in particular, but there is a culture within them that divides their loyalties between UnkaSham and Salt Lake City.

Have no doubt which has the strongest hold.

 

That causes me to pause and cogitate.

 

kL

[♦ nivek ♦]

Let me get this straight...

 

"VT-like murders are a scarey part of living in a society mostly free of nannies and proctors telling us every thing and -way to go and do."

 

So, Virginia Tech. is a not only a sign of civilisation, but a healthy one?

 

Gramps,

 

Huh? I totally missed this one..

 

kL

[Grandpa Harley]

Let me get this straight...

 

"VT-like murders are a scarey part of living in a society mostly free of nannies and proctors telling us every thing and -way to go and do."

 

So, Virginia Tech. is a not only a sign of civilisation, but a healthy one?

 

Gramps,

 

Huh? I totally missed this one..

 

kL

 

I think you wrote, so what aren't you following? IT sounds like a re-phrase of 'acceptable losses'.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Guns Don't Kill People, Rappers Do.

 

I'm rather bemused despite hard scientific evidence the more guns in any given society the more people are killed

Yet you put forward the argument "Guns Save Lives!" why not add "Jesus saves lives" it would make as much sense

Check the statistics guns kill people lots and lots of people guns take lives

Virginia Tech being an example if every student was carrying gun you'd sill end up with a dead person. probably more than one. if nobody carried guns then you'd have no dead people. number of children killed by a mad gunman in a British schools post handgun ban zero

 

Poor Dev.. Hiding in his cave, protected by the lack of anything sharp, blunt, large, threatening or dangerous. Must not want to get out much from his safe haven, out into a world of folks who will use any tool they can get hands on to deliver whatever message or threat they need.

 

Dev's missed the posts leading to professor Gary Kleck's work, posts about the rising use of assorted weapons including firearms in the Emerald Isles, and he has sooOoooOoooOO chosen to forget that murderes are usually so because they choose to be, noting well wishing or legislative can fix.

 

Dev also forgets that in all civillizied countries that murder, however committed is against the law(s) already.

 

VT is a prime example of "Murder by Government", a sorry assed place to have been. I won't recite the pages of information Dev hasn't (has choose not to read, or has and ignored the peer reviewed evidence and research done) read, he can do his own homework, find some education and enlightenment to help cure his rampant hoplophobia, but in the firearms discussions there is enough to read to show the absolute willing ignorance of his lack-of position.

 

Bleeeeeeeeat on Dev. Handguns are still being used as criminals tools all over the UK, despite your thinking otherwise. criminals can and do obtain them, use them, and will contine to do so despite the surveilliance society and cameras your growing Police State has.

 

The folks in the UK who have need for firearms are disallowed them by your elected leaders.

 

You've got no *legs* to stand on this discussion this thread with that line of thought Devvie. Your arguments are already blown the fuck away by Kleck and others studying the "Gun Problems".

 

Try again.

 

kFL

>edit--->G S L !

[Grandpa Harley]

Well, that was refreshing... deep reasoned argument.... now, I regard Dev as the fruit cake that won't leave, but for a Board moderator to rant like that at a user is unprofessional and just gives the impression that you personally spend a lot of your time waiting for the ZOG and NWO to break into your compound while listening to Prussian Blue and eating beans out of a can...

 

Seems to me that you should quit measuring your dick, reel you neck in, and behave like a professional.

[Amanda]

Amanda...

 

This is the crux of the matter for me, quoting you from above:

 

"We all know that guns don't kill people... people do."

 

That simply is not true. I can't go through each post and hand you the information required to turn your mind from this venue of thinking, but assigning an animal ability, "killing" to an inanimate piece of steel and wood is unusable.

 

If true, one room of my home and grounds would be a literal blood bathed killing zone due to *guns*. Firearms ranges, gunshows, hunting outings, would be horrible places of gore and carnage due to guns.

 

It doesn't happen. Any firearm requires that it be used as designed to make it "kill".

 

Firearm you have will sit comfortably in its storage area until something removes it and in turn compels its use.

Nivek... I apologize... I didn't convey what I was trying to say very effectively. When I said, "We all know that guns don't kill people... people do." I was saying the same thing you're saying. The gun NEVER jumps up off the counter and points to someone and fires all by itself. I've never heard of one single case like that. It is the PERSON who wants to kill another person, who uses a gun so that the PERSON kills someone else... so it is the PERSON who kills, not the gun. Murderers use kitchen knives, ropes, an assortment of items... even their bare hands.

 

*****

That brings us to the mentally unfit. I can and slighty do understand compassion, despite that emotion being rarely used by this mean_old_man.

 

Nivek, these people are mentally sick. It's a lot like cancer of the mind... they can't help it. If we can treat them, then they can become productive citizens contributing to the support of themselves and this country instead of consuming it. Plus, they deserve a life too.

 

Bad analogy, the cancer. Cancer might be cured, most often kills the host. If "they" can't help their actions, "they" need to be separated, given what treatment(s) they might, and again not allowed to mingle in the general population and cause harm.

Cancer might have very well been a bad analogy, however, something went wrong in their interpretation of what most accept as reality, or have self discipline problems, or have medical problems (ie. inner auditory disorders) not diagnosed that contributes to their perception problems, plus many more I'm sure. Unfortunately, dysfunction usually passes from generation to generation, and often escalates with each one. We have just recently recognized that there are specific learning handicaps for the present methods of teaching. BTW, many people suggest that our techniques and strategies for teaching are most best suited for only about 20% (or less) of the population.

 

I was working on a project that I was put into a female correctional facility, for a few hours one day a week, in a room that accommodated the general population for their "free time" out of their cells. There were two female gaurds besides me in there, over a thousand prisoners, and no gaurds had a gun. Anyway, I was always amazed at the obvious mental health disorders that was pervasive there! Scary!

As far as treatment, somewhere up the pages, Pitchu and I both posted links to unsucessful attempts of chemical behavioural modification that lead to some horrible ends to innocents. Find time to research this, then feel free to comment on "treatment sucesses".

Well, since Sigmund Freud is considered the Father of Psychology, and he was in the early 1900s, I can understand the frustrations in the infancy of this field. Yes, Hippocratese 2500 years ago did present some significant assistance in psychology (he's mostly known for his medical contributions), but mostly for categorizing and analyzing, and not for treatment. Actually, some ancient spiritual teachings seem to have contributed significantly in this area... but please, I don't want to go there.

As far as a "life"? Hard to give an exact quotient what makes the mentally ill *happy* *content*. Some folks are are seemingly happy under the bridge and do not want intervention in their life. Others are just as useful shooting their eight of heroin, putting on their custom silt tailored suits and going to work. Defining what is "life" and how we are gonna make it "all better" is somthing as far as I can see hasn't happened in professional journals and practices.

Your very lucky to NOT have a mentally ill person who is very close to you. Yes, often they don't want help because although their coping skill does not seem normal to us... it's normal to them. It's a lot of hard work to "rewire" one's coping skills and often involves addressing very painful emotions, from which their present coping skills are protecting them. Additionally, many are just self medicating... street drugs... and find themselves that they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. At least the drug gives them an escape for a little while... yet we all know that it's going to be worse in the end. Freud is really one of the first to start making headway to significant recoveries, as far as I know.

Does it mean that society doesn't continue to research and try to help those with deficiencies and problems? Not at all.

The Big However is that we as a People do not, should not have to live with those mentally unable to comprehend the damage they do, or are so inclined to commit criminal acts.

This is because there are no suitable resorces for these people. That's why I wonder if there is a correlation with the escalating armed violence and the closing of most mental hospitals by Reagan's administration.

If a criminal is such as he or she is a threat to the society around them after treatment or incarceration, then "Coventry" as propsed by RAH is my choice. They may live and do in total freedom, separated forever, making a world in which they are harmless to those "norms".

Again, you're lucky not to have a beloved family member with significant mental health problems.

The question begs for me: "How many anti-social homicidal mentally challenged people do you sponsor living in your home?"

This would be a very demanding aspiration, not enough resources, would require people treating them who are well informed of the dynamics of the disorder, as well as keeping up with new information all the time. Like I said, it would be much easier to spot them the younger, the better. Teachers are not taught to recognize these signs, and often kids in dysfuncitonal homes have learned they're not allowed to express their anger feelings... and then do so once they are adults.

Simply lack the compassion to understand their complex headaches, nor do I care what caused them to do their henious criminal activities.

Understanding is the first step to treatment, and more importantly to prevention.

[Grandpa Harley]

Damn fine post...