|
about 30 ppl killed in YET ANOTHER shooting (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
WTF does narcotics have to do with it? |
Potential for addiction I would suppose. And narcotics can be used to describe a wide range of medication. I'm not sure if it's a disqualifying factor, but they definitely check.
And as far as non-restrictive firearms go, I'd have to agree. I walked into Dicks Sporting Goods and walked out with a shotgun in about 15 minutes. Someone tried to break into my apartment once, so I keep it locked in my apartment, and never take it out. Still, it shouldn't be so easy to buy one.
I didn't even need a permit. I literally walked into the store, said "which one would be best for home defense only", the guy pointed at one, mumbled something about it being American made so you know it's good, and I bought it. They ran a "background check" which consisted of the guy walking into a back room and coming out about 2 minutes later, but that was it. I bought a shotgun and about 25 rounds of ammunition in about 15 minutes. |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
| 28 dead. Holy crap. The hypocrisy of the second amendment adherents is that they dont want any limitations on their rights to bear arms but are very willing to restrict the first amendment rights. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| Nobody is calling for the government to squelch people who speak out against the 2nd amendment. |
|
|
| Jon_Snow |
| In my state you can shoot'em if they step on to your porch. No longer have to drag dem into the house after you shot'em to make it legal. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
Potential for addiction I would suppose. And narcotics can be used to describe a wide range of medication. I'm not sure if it's a disqualifying factor, but they definitely check.
And as far as non-restrictive firearms go, I'd have to agree. I walked into Dicks Sporting Goods and walked out with a shotgun in about 15 minutes. Someone tried to break into my apartment once, so I keep it locked in my apartment, and never take it out. Still, it shouldn't be so easy to buy one.
I didn't even need a permit. I literally walked into the store, said "which one would be best for home defense only", the guy pointed at one, mumbled something about it being American made so you know it's good, and I bought it. They ran a "background check" which consisted of the guy walking into a back room and coming out about 2 minutes later, but that was it. I bought a shotgun and about 25 rounds of ammunition in about 15 minutes. |
Then why not check credit card records for purchases at liquor stores - rule out potential alcoholism? It's a pointless provision and sounds like an amendment thrown in by someone whose papa hit the codeine a little too hard when they were growing up. I can't stand the NRA but bull like this undermines the case against them. It's frivolous and impertinent. If someone has had a prescription for Tylenol 3, that should not prohibit them from owning a firearm. |
|
|
| Trancealot |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
That is extremely poor reasoning... |
What side of this do you take? Mine is less guns will lead to less shootings occuring. Unfortunately more control will not stop anyone from getting a gun. It will making it tougher going through the legal channels but otherwise anyone can get a gun if they want and then thats up to them to use it to protect, do harm, etc. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
Then why not check credit card records for purchases at liquor stores - rule out potential alcoholism? It's a pointless provision and sounds like an amendment thrown in by someone whose papa hit the codeine a little too hard when they were growing up. I can't stand the NRA but bull like this undermines the case against them. It's frivolous and impertinent. If someone has had a prescription for Tylenol 3, that should not prohibit them from owning a firearm. |
I'm pretty sure they're only checking for hard drugs, even though I know you're only being facetious. Xanax and Valium are also considered controlled substances, both would suggest a mental health condition. |
|
|
| Mattsanity. |
MEN
ARE
EVIL
'nuff said. |
|
|
| Jon_Snow |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancealot
What side of this do you take? Mine is less guns will lead to less shootings occuring. Unfortunately more control will not stop anyone from getting a gun. It will making it tougher going through the legal channels but otherwise anyone can get a gun if they want and then thats up to them to use it to protect, do harm, etc. |
PRECOG!!! |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Nobody is calling for the government to squelch people who speak out against the 2nd amendment. |
Thats not my point. I was refering to the exceptions to the first amendment that proponents of the second will use at the same time that they dont want any exceptions to the second. For instance, defamation, which is an exception to the first. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
Then why not check credit card records for purchases at liquor stores - rule out potential alcoholism? It's a pointless provision and sounds like an amendment thrown in by someone whose papa hit the codeine a little too hard when they were growing up. I can't stand the NRA but bull like this undermines the case against them. It's frivolous and impertinent. If someone has had a prescription for Tylenol 3, that should not prohibit them from owning a firearm. |
Maybe it doesn't prohibit them from obtaining a firearm, though. Or perhaps there are certain classifications of documented prescriptions that especially preclude someone from qualifying for the permit. I'm not sure on the details, obviously.
But you cannot discuss these kinds of tragedies and what ought to be done about them without discussing mental health. I'm certain the narcotics clause was appended to the prerequisites by some well-meaning legislation to keep guns out of the hands of the sick and risky. Most can agree that the public stigma on seeking help as well as the provisions to even do so for those likely most at risk of needing it (the stressed and low income, uninsured, etc.) is quite abysmal in the US, but it becomes increasingly slippery to begin addressing it, not unlike the proposition of confiscating all firearms from people. Obviously you can never eradicate mental sickness, but you also can't force people to seek help, and the most insane might not even know it's what is best for them. And what do you even do with these people? Lock them all up because they're depressed? Profile them so that you can catch them before they do something really awful? We already try that, and it largely doesn't work.
Rolling out restrictions on (legit) new gun purchases won't go far in addressing the problem, it's merely one symptom. It's favourable, but doesn't do enough. Imposing obscene taxes on ammunition, might help. Or outright placing a moratorium on the manufacturing of ammunition for some time could cause its value to spike. Not allowing ing Wal Mart to sell bullets is getting there.
We keep ing Sudafed off the shelves, but I can buy a box of 9mm HPs with a gift card and a self-checkout lane. Oh, but lighters get me carded! |
|
|
| Sleightful |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancealot
One less gun means one less chance of a shooting. Plus don't give me that bul where knives and other objects can kill just like a gun because they don't! |
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20723910
Knife came close. |
|
|
|
|
