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

Mei tsuki7
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.
[Snide]

And who gets to decide what constitutes a danger to one's self? As someone with chronic depression, I have a big issue with this.
Wendigo's avatar

Manly Explorer

8,750 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Kaltros
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.
In the Lanza case, future Nancy Lanzas will have to consider carefully whether it's worth it keeping five guns in the same home as a mentally and emotionally disturbed adult son.
HMS Thunder Child
Mei tsuki7
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.
[Snide]

And who gets to decide what constitutes a danger to one's self? As someone with chronic depression, I have a big issue with this.


The trained psychologist/psychiatrist. NOT the government. The government should say "If, in your professional opinion, you feel your patient is a danger to themselves or others then you MUST report them." but not "These mental illnesses make you ineligible to have a gun." and they certainly shouldn't say "If you have a mental disorder/illness you can't have a weapon." because that includes many non-violent people as well.
HMS Thunder Child
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.


You are right actually. My point wasn't that banning semi-auto rifles would do anything. Just that people are okay with banning them and that handguns would never be banned.

A ban on handguns also wouldn't do anything though. Because the issue is violence and gun violence is just a part of it. We actually have a lower crime rate than many other countries. Including other first world countries that have gun bans.
HMS Thunder Child's avatar

Magical Girl

Mei tsuki7
HMS Thunder Child
Mei tsuki7
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.
[Snide]

And who gets to decide what constitutes a danger to one's self? As someone with chronic depression, I have a big issue with this.


The trained psychologist/psychiatrist. NOT the government. The government should say "If, in your professional opinion, you feel your patient is a danger to themselves or others then you MUST report them." but not "These mental illnesses make you ineligible to have a gun." and they certainly shouldn't say "If you have a mental disorder/illness you can't have a weapon." because that includes many non-violent people as well.
[Apologetic]

Fair enough.
Wendigo's avatar

Manly Explorer

8,750 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Mei tsuki7

A ban on handguns also wouldn't do anything though. Because the issue is violence and gun violence is just a part of it. We actually have a lower crime rate than many other countries. Including other first world countries that have gun bans.
Nonetheless, the UK has 30-40 gun killings a year, Japan has 10-20, the US has 11,000.
Wendigo
Mei tsuki7

A ban on handguns also wouldn't do anything though. Because the issue is violence and gun violence is just a part of it. We actually have a lower crime rate than many other countries. Including other first world countries that have gun bans.
Nonetheless, the UK has 30-40 gun killings a year, Japan has 10-20, the US has 11,000.


What is your point? You didn't say anything to disprove my point at all.
Wendigo's avatar

Manly Explorer

8,750 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Mei tsuki7
Wendigo
Mei tsuki7

A ban on handguns also wouldn't do anything though. Because the issue is violence and gun violence is just a part of it. We actually have a lower crime rate than many other countries. Including other first world countries that have gun bans.
Nonetheless, the UK has 30-40 gun killings a year, Japan has 10-20, the US has 11,000.


What is your point? You didn't say anything to disprove my point at all.
My point is that the removal of firearms from the equation has also almost completely removed firearm-related deaths. With that goal in mind, it is apparent that it is achievable through that method.
Wendigo
Mei tsuki7

A ban on handguns also wouldn't do anything though. Because the issue is violence and gun violence is just a part of it. We actually have a lower crime rate than many other countries. Including other first world countries that have gun bans.
Nonetheless, the UK has 30-40 gun killings a year, Japan has 10-20, the US has 11,000.


why is murder-by-gun worse than murder-by-shovel and murder-by-rear-axle?
Wendigo's avatar

Manly Explorer

8,750 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
hahahalolwut
why is murder-by-gun worse than murder-by-shovel and murder-by-rear-axle?
It isn't. Improvised weapons aren't as effective as special-purpose weapons, however. That point-and-click interface really makes a difference.
Wendigo
hahahalolwut
why is murder-by-gun worse than murder-by-shovel and murder-by-rear-axle?
It isn't. Improvised weapons aren't as effective as special-purpose weapons, however. That point-and-click interface really makes a difference.


then why are you only considering raw numbers rather than per capita of only a certain kind of murder rather than the total murder rate?
Wendigo's avatar

Manly Explorer

8,750 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
hahahalolwut
Wendigo
hahahalolwut
why is murder-by-gun worse than murder-by-shovel and murder-by-rear-axle?
It isn't. Improvised weapons aren't as effective as special-purpose weapons, however. That point-and-click interface really makes a difference.


then why are you only considering raw numbers rather than per capita of only a certain kind of murder rather than the total murder rate?
I'm using the numbers of this particular kind of murder because it's the kind of murder we find ourselves talking about. Access to firearms is not, of course, a driving factor behind murders which use cyanide.

You want rate, I can do rate. Source here: http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=UNODC&f=tableCode:1

Japan: 506 total homicides (2009), 0.4 per 100,000 population. 127.8 million population.
UK 722 total homicides (2009), 1.2 per 100,000 population. 62.6 million population.
US 13,636 total homicides (2009), 4.4 per 100,000 population. 311.6 million population.

Which of these things is not like the other, which of these things is not the same...
Wendigo
Mei tsuki7
Wendigo
Mei tsuki7

A ban on handguns also wouldn't do anything though. Because the issue is violence and gun violence is just a part of it. We actually have a lower crime rate than many other countries. Including other first world countries that have gun bans.
Nonetheless, the UK has 30-40 gun killings a year, Japan has 10-20, the US has 11,000.


What is your point? You didn't say anything to disprove my point at all.
My point is that the removal of firearms from the equation has also almost completely removed firearm-related deaths. With that goal in mind, it is apparent that it is achievable through that method.


Actually, an end to violence seems to be the goal. And again, banning guns will not do that.
Wendigo's avatar

Manly Explorer

8,750 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Mei tsuki7

Actually, an end to violence seems to be the goal. And again, banning guns will not do that.
I would also like for the moon to be edible, but sometimes you have to work on what can be achieved.

Quick Reply

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