Welcome to Gaia! ::

Is New York's new gun control law a good idea?

Yes. 0.2 20.0% [ 6 ]
Yes to some parts, no to others. 0.16666666666667 16.7% [ 5 ]
No. It'll be completely ineffective. 0.2 20.0% [ 6 ]
Bad legislation is bad. 0.3 30.0% [ 9 ]
Teh gubment gunna take our gunz! 0.13333333333333 13.3% [ 4 ]
Total Votes:[ 30 ]
< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >
HMS Thunder Child's avatar

Magical Girl

God Emperor Akhenaton
HMS Thunder Child
God Emperor Akhenaton
HMS Thunder Child
God Emperor Akhenaton

And any credibility you once had is gone.
[Confused]

Again, why?

Because if someone has depression, then they are at an increased risk of suicide. And not all suicides involve one death.
[Annoyed]

Were that the case, people in relationships would need to be barred as well, considering that domestic murders involving firearms are frequent enough to be statistics. I could continue to provide examples, or you could concede that what you propose is simply not grounds enough for a blanket ban.

All I am seeing here is a willingness to fund a witch hunt for convenience's sake.

A relationship doesn't increase the likelyhood of homicide. Depression however does. The mentally unstable have no business in owning a gun.
[Curious]

And what authority do you have in determining a person's mental stability?
HMS Thunder Child
God Emperor Akhenaton
HMS Thunder Child
God Emperor Akhenaton
HMS Thunder Child
God Emperor Akhenaton

And any credibility you once had is gone.
[Confused]

Again, why?

Because if someone has depression, then they are at an increased risk of suicide. And not all suicides involve one death.
[Annoyed]

Were that the case, people in relationships would need to be barred as well, considering that domestic murders involving firearms are frequent enough to be statistics. I could continue to provide examples, or you could concede that what you propose is simply not grounds enough for a blanket ban.

All I am seeing here is a willingness to fund a witch hunt for convenience's sake.

A relationship doesn't increase the likelyhood of homicide. Depression however does. The mentally unstable have no business in owning a gun.
[Curious]

And what authority do you have in determining a person's mental stability?

Who said it was up to me? Ask the people with 8+ years of studying human psychology.
HMS Thunder Child's avatar

Magical Girl

God Emperor Akhenaton
HMS Thunder Child
God Emperor Akhenaton
HMS Thunder Child
God Emperor Akhenaton

Because if someone has depression, then they are at an increased risk of suicide. And not all suicides involve one death.
[Annoyed]

Were that the case, people in relationships would need to be barred as well, considering that domestic murders involving firearms are frequent enough to be statistics. I could continue to provide examples, or you could concede that what you propose is simply not grounds enough for a blanket ban.

All I am seeing here is a willingness to fund a witch hunt for convenience's sake.

A relationship doesn't increase the likelyhood of homicide. Depression however does. The mentally unstable have no business in owning a gun.
[Curious]

And what authority do you have in determining a person's mental stability?

Who said it was up to me? Ask the people with 8+ years of studying human psychology.
[Earnest]

So you admit that you have no grounds to argue.
HMS Thunder Child

So you admit that you have no grounds to argue.


I think he's kinda confused. You can't determine mental stability until he sees someone. If he is seeing a professional, you break doctor-patient confidentiality when you force that professional to report it, unless he did something to become institutionalized, has a police record, or something similar that happens in the public. Otherwise, he is a private citizen and it would be hypocritical to strip his rights on nothing more than a suspicion. Do you see how that works, God Emperor Akhenaton?
What good will this do in cases where the shooter steals the guns from somebody else, like in the Sandy Hook shootings? Lanza didn't buy the guns himself.
This was the red flag,

From the ABC News mobile app:::

User Image

This is a clear violation of our nations 2nd Amendment Right.
Symorin's avatar

Dapper Codger

3,800 Points
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Entrepreneur 150
  • Profitable 100
Michael Noire
i find it interesting that a decades long campaign to promote mental health care and encourage the normalcy of seeking psychiatric care is followed up by legislation treating the people who took that advice like the Monster from Shelley's Frankenstein.


And I find it hilarious that gun control nuts were all about "Focus on the mentally ill, don't take MY guns!" then when they do focus on the mentally ill they start hollering about tyranny.
Symorin
Michael Noire
i find it interesting that a decades long campaign to promote mental health care and encourage the normalcy of seeking psychiatric care is followed up by legislation treating the people who took that advice like the Monster from Shelley's Frankenstein.


And I find it hilarious that gun control nuts were all about "Focus on the mentally ill, don't take MY guns!" then when they do focus on the mentally ill they start hollering about tyranny.

You can't win so why bother trying? Just honor the dead, thank them for their sacrifice, and chalk it up as a price that must be paid from time to time.
Noogie's avatar

Liberal Bloodsucker

7,250 Points
  • Voter 100
  • Generous 100
  • Tycoon 200
Totally Oblivious
Noogie
Totally Oblivious
Just erect a memorial to the people who were massacred, thanking them for their sacrifice for our freedoms. It's just the price you have pay for having such freedoms, and we should expect such. Every American should be willing to give their lives to protect the Constitution and all it means and if you aren't willing to do so, renounce your citizenship and go someplace else.
rofl

What's so funny? It appears to be the only solution you'll get any real support for. Patriotic Americans are always willing to sacrifice themselves (or more likely their fellow countrymen) for such ideals and freedoms. Look at how many of these people lined up to serve fighting for their county and its freedoms overseas. Such fervent patriots cannot be ignored. They earned the right through their actions.
They're ******** kids, mang. One got his face shot up. They weren't a sacrifice, they were ******** massacred. They didn't ******** give two shits about the United States of Assica, they were probably too caught up in what they were getting for ******** Christmas. Gun control works, Australia is proof of that. Meanwhile, you've had several hundred people die since.

Your second amendment is s**t, it was written in a time when drones and nukes weren't even twinkles in their grandpappy's eyes. Guns have their uses, but you guys need to fix up your education and health systems before you let every Tom, d**k & Muhammed think they're entitled to own one.
Heimdalr's avatar

Mega Noob

You know, you wouldn't be the only civilization to sacrifice children in the 21st century. Uganda has this problem too.

Seriously though, unless you mean freedom in death, there's no particular freedom achieved from senseless slaughter.
Noogie's avatar

Liberal Bloodsucker

7,250 Points
  • Voter 100
  • Generous 100
  • Tycoon 200
Heimdalr
You know, you wouldn't be the only civilization to sacrifice children in the 21st century. Uganda has this problem too.

Seriously though, unless you mean freedom in death, there's no particular freedom achieved from senseless slaughter.
They're free with Jesus, dard. Or burning in the alternative hells if you happen to pick the wrong religion.
Noogie
Totally Oblivious
Noogie
Totally Oblivious
Just erect a memorial to the people who were massacred, thanking them for their sacrifice for our freedoms. It's just the price you have pay for having such freedoms, and we should expect such. Every American should be willing to give their lives to protect the Constitution and all it means and if you aren't willing to do so, renounce your citizenship and go someplace else.
rofl

What's so funny? It appears to be the only solution you'll get any real support for. Patriotic Americans are always willing to sacrifice themselves (or more likely their fellow countrymen) for such ideals and freedoms. Look at how many of these people lined up to serve fighting for their county and its freedoms overseas. Such fervent patriots cannot be ignored. They earned the right through their actions.
They're ******** kids, mang. One got his face shot up. They weren't a sacrifice, they were ******** massacred. They didn't ******** give two shits about the United States of Assica, they were probably too caught up in what they were getting for ******** Christmas. Gun control works, Australia is proof of that. Meanwhile, you've had several hundred people die since.

Your second amendment is s**t, it was written in a time when drones and nukes weren't even twinkles in their grandpappy's eyes. Guns have their uses, but you guys need to fix up your education and health systems before you let every Tom, d**k & Muhammed think they're entitled to own one.


You don't sound American, so I'm sure that's why you don't understand. There is no country quite like ours and we are ferocious about protecting our freedoms, even if a lot of people, yes, even kids, have to die for it. They're Americans and died as such, protecting our Liberty and Freedom. I'm sure the teachers who died understood and should have died with smiles on their faces, knowing their deaths were not in vain. The blood watered the trees of liberty, and although it's sad they were called to do so at such an age, they are honored to do it instead of some horrifying death of illness or old age in a bed.

As for the children? At what age is it to be too young to be covered by the Constitution? I mean, we want to grant such Rights and Freedoms to the fresh union of an eggs and sperm, so these kids are well within that age bracket. They should have known what was asked of them as Americans, even if they might be too young to be able to read about it, unless Mommy and Daddy weren't patriotic enough to read them stories about what it is to be an American at bedtime before putting them to sleep.

Maybe that President can give them each a Presidential Medal of Freedom and name a special day to honor them. It can be a government holiday.
HMS Thunder Child
Were it not knee jerk, the legislation would presumably have targeted semi-automatic handguns, not rifles.


No it wouldn't. People are (mostly) fine with banning of semi-automatic rifles since they are not usually used for defense. Semi-auto handguns though, are used for defense. If you banned those you would end up with only revolvers which, unless you're very good, don't help the average gun owner much in the defense aspect.
Totally Oblivious
HMS Thunder Child

So you admit that you have no grounds to argue.


I think he's kinda confused. You can't determine mental stability until he sees someone. If he is seeing a professional, you break doctor-patient confidentiality when you force that professional to report it, unless he did something to become institutionalized, has a police record, or something similar that happens in the public. Otherwise, he is a private citizen and it would be hypocritical to strip his rights on nothing more than a suspicion. Do you see how that works, God Emperor Akhenaton?


Saving lives >>>>>> Doctor/Patient confidentiality. As someone who has ADHD and therefore goes to a psychiatrist I have no issue with this. People who are a danger to themselves and/or others should NOT be allowed to buy weapons and the only way to stop this is to allow psychiatrists and psychologists to report them.
HMS Thunder Child's avatar

Magical Girl

Mei tsuki7
HMS Thunder Child
Were it not knee jerk, the legislation would presumably have targeted semi-automatic handguns, not rifles.


No it wouldn't. People are (mostly) fine with banning of semi-automatic rifles since they are not usually used for defense. Semi-auto handguns though, are used for defense. If you banned those you would end up with only revolvers which, unless you're very good, don't help the average gun owner much in the defense aspect.
[Annoyed]

The majority of firearm related crimes are perpetrated with semi-automatic handguns. Therefore, the only reason to ban semi-automatic rifles at that point was to capitalize on the fact that they have been used by a couple of mass murderers very recently. It won't actually solve anything.

Furthermore, most revolvers made today are SA/DA or DAO. A ban on semi-automatic firearms would hit them fairly hard, too.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games