Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Florida Mass Shooting

Page 5 of 11 [ 167 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 11  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

09 Sep 2021, 3:39 am

Dox47 wrote:
Yeah, I don't normally like the "I can't believe someone on an AS support site would propose targeting people with mental disorders" line of argument, but it seems appropriate here.


How exactly is it targeting people on this site when the proposal was for checking access to acquiring a weapon?. Last time I checked you can't treat autism with guns so not sure how that's such a terrible thing to limit access to anyone of certifiable unstable mind? Do you ever imagine there would be crowds of people with schizophrenia marching demanding access to guns?

At the very least some form of psychiatric assessment should be done before acquiring a high powered weapon capable of killing multiple people as opposed to a pistol for self-defence.

In theory nobody except the armed forces or police should be accessing high powered weapons but that's a topic for another thread



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

09 Sep 2021, 3:51 am

cyberdad wrote:
How exactly is it targeting people on this site when the proposal was for checking access to acquiring a weapon?


No right requires you to pass a test to be utilized, that's why it's called a right and not a privilege. You're suggesting denying people a right based solely on a diagnosis that does not correlate with violence, much like AS is not associated with violence, but easily could be placed on a disqualification list if ignorant people were to pass such a law.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

09 Sep 2021, 4:10 am

Dox47 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
How exactly is it targeting people on this site when the proposal was for checking access to acquiring a weapon?


No right requires you to pass a test to be utilized, that's why it's called a right and not a privilege. You're suggesting denying people a right based solely on a diagnosis that does not correlate with violence, much like AS is not associated with violence, but easily could be placed on a disqualification list if ignorant people were to pass such a law.


Actually I am not saying that, you are.

In Australia doctors are obligated to report "anyone" of unsound mind to the authorities who have access to weapons.
https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2014/201 ... -clinician

As usual I stick to scientific data to come up with my ideas. If this law isn't applied in America to gun ownership then I am simply highlighting that the USA join other civilised countries in the 21st century and protect your citizens from gun-violence/harm.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

09 Sep 2021, 5:29 am

cyberdad wrote:

Actually I am not saying that, you are.

In Australia doctors are obligated to report "anyone" of unsound mind to the authorities who have access to weapons.
https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2014/201 ... -clinician

As usual I stick to scientific data to come up with my ideas. If this law isn't applied in America to gun ownership then I am simply highlighting that the USA join other civilised countries in the 21st century and protect your citizens from gun-violence/harm.


How about no?


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


ezbzbfcg2
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,991
Location: New Jersey, USA

09 Sep 2021, 6:20 am

How many victims are required to make it a mass shooting?



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

09 Sep 2021, 6:23 am

cyberdad wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
How exactly is it targeting people on this site when the proposal was for checking access to acquiring a weapon?


No right requires you to pass a test to be utilized, that's why it's called a right and not a privilege. You're suggesting denying people a right based solely on a diagnosis that does not correlate with violence, much like AS is not associated with violence, but easily could be placed on a disqualification list if ignorant people were to pass such a law.


Actually I am not saying that, you are.


Technically, making comments regarding a "right" in one culture based upon the requirements for what is considered a "privilege" in another, was saying that...

cyberdad wrote:
In Australia doctors are obligated to report "anyone" of unsound mind to the authorities who have access to weapons.
https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2014/201 ... -clinician


And yet, we're not talking about Australia... Hadn't you noticed?

cyberdad wrote:
As usual I stick to scientific data to come up with my ideas.

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

cyberdad wrote:
If this law isn't applied in America to gun ownership then I am simply highlighting that the USA join other civilised countries in the 21st century and protect your citizens from gun-violence/harm.


So, your saying that the United states, and by extension it's population, isn't civilised?

I'm getting the sense that there is an underlying desire here to force a culture (or portions thereof) onto a population whose culture is different, rather than respecting that different nations have their own cultures suited to their own needs (with an attached assumption of "superiority" behind the culture being pushed)... Much as the European colonists probably felt and acted when exposed to the cultures and people they came across, I would guess.



Blue_Star
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Sep 2009
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 555

09 Sep 2021, 6:25 am

I recalled it being 4+. What Counts as a Mass Shooting? & other google results seem to confirm (ish) that.

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:
How many victims are required to make it a mass shooting?



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

09 Sep 2021, 7:07 am

Dox47 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:

Actually I am not saying that, you are.

In Australia doctors are obligated to report "anyone" of unsound mind to the authorities who have access to weapons.
https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2014/201 ... -clinician

As usual I stick to scientific data to come up with my ideas. If this law isn't applied in America to gun ownership then I am simply highlighting that the USA join other civilised countries in the 21st century and protect your citizens from gun-violence/harm.


How about no?


Do you speak for the entire United States?



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,953
Location:      

09 Sep 2021, 8:21 am

cyberdad wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Actually I am not saying that, you are.  In Australia doctors are obligated to report "anyone" of unsound mind to the authorities who have access to weapons. 
[...]
As usual I stick to scientific data to come up with my ideas. If this law isn't applied in America to gun ownership then I am simply highlighting that the USA join other civilised countries in the 21st century and protect your citizens from gun-violence/harm.
How about no?
Do you speak for the entire United States?
Obviously, he does not.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

09 Sep 2021, 4:23 pm

Fnord wrote:
Obviously, he does not.


But our Constitution does, and a person does not lose it's protections based on a diagnosis alone.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

09 Sep 2021, 4:32 pm

Blue_Star wrote:
I recalled it being 4+. What Counts as a Mass Shooting? & other google results seem to confirm (ish) that.


There's some trickery involved with the terminology, when the public hears the term "mass shooting", they tend to think of someone gunning down acquaintances or strangers at random in an unprovoked attack, where as many of the sites claiming to track mass shootings simply use the metric of how many people were hit, so they can claim more gang related drive by type attacks as mass shootings, inflating the statistics. You see this type of thing frequently on the anti gun side, for years they'd lump suicides in with murders and call the results "gun deaths" in order to produce a higher number, or classify anyone under the age of 20 as "children" in order to count more gang related killings as child victims of violence even when they were the perpetrators, you've got to be really careful of misleading information in this area.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

10 Sep 2021, 5:08 am

Dox47 wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Obviously, he does not.


But our Constitution does, and a person does not lose it's protections based on a diagnosis alone.


Wouldn't put all your eggs in one basket. The constitution was written in a time in American history when settlers needed to be armed to kill British soldiers and native Americans. That time has gone, Constitutions can change if its the will of the people.
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/20/77127816 ... es-to-grow

I guess the news stories about gun nuts randomly shooting civilians does have an expiry date. The questions is when (not if)



Joe90
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 26,492
Location: UK

10 Sep 2021, 6:00 am

Let me guess, the shooter was autistic. :roll:


_________________
Female


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,953
Location:      

10 Sep 2021, 8:36 am

Joe90 wrote:
Let me guess, the shooter was autistic.
No, just a survivalist high on meth.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


Mr Reynholm
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2019
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,363
Location: Tulsa, OK

10 Sep 2021, 9:03 am

cyberdad wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Obviously, he does not.


But our Constitution does, and a person does not lose it's protections based on a diagnosis alone.


Wouldn't put all your eggs in one basket. The constitution was written in a time in American history when settlers needed to be armed to kill British soldiers and native Americans. That time has gone, Constitutions can change if its the will of the people.
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/20/77127816 ... es-to-grow

I guess the news stories about gun nuts randomly shooting civilians does have an expiry date. The questions is when (not if)

The Second Amendment exists because sovereign citizens need to be armed to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. Living in Australia nowadays surely you can understand why this idea is prudent.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,305
Location: Right over your left shoulder

10 Sep 2021, 10:33 am

I hope no one hear has actually fallen for sovereign citizen or free man on the land nonsense. There's many branches of that ideology but they're all equally BS.


_________________
There's no such thing as a free market.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.