If a ban is passed on so called "assault weapons, what happens next?

[We Never Know]

I don't support unjust discrimination. I have severe depression, anxiety disorder and borderline personality disorder. I have no history of violence towards others and no history of arrests or anything. Why should I not be allowed to buy a hunting rifle and go deer hunting or what have you? Why should I be banned from buying a handgun or shotgun for self-defense?

A disproportionately large amount of LGBT people have mental health issues, as well as frequently being a target of violence in various areas. Should they not be allowed to have a gun to defend themselves from those who wish to bash them?

Mind you, I have nothing against psychological testing and requiring training and licensing to own a firearm. That seems fair and sane.

Are your mentally or emotionally unstable?

Example...
John Doe, now 25, has been on several medications for being mentally and emotionally unstable since he was 10 years old. He has through his years tortured a few animals, had temper out bursts a few times but he has never been in trouble with the law.
A legal background checks won't reveal any of that.
In my opinion that person shouldn't be able to purchase a firearm.

 

[We Never Know]

And that's your defense? Gee, why not just include nukes while you're at it?

Its just clearly pointing out people kill people. And will find ways to do it regardless.

 

[Brickjectivity]

yes it was European Americans with guns that slaughtered the native Americans and almost exterminated them

Guns weren't the deciding factor either in South or North America. It was large scale agriculture. Indigenous North Americans actually benefited from hunting rifles and adopted them as well as horses. They saw the value of a rifle and adopted the rifle. They were adapting to farming, but the Europeans were already farmers. The land had been mostly emptied by plague, and as more Europeans came overseas and began to have children the land filled with farms and fences.

North America was first decimated by plagues not by Europeans. The population was cut down heavily such that the land was sparsely populated. Then large scale agriculture took hold, and whoever adopted that thrived.

What ended tribal ways in N. America was large scale agriculture -- the plow. Tribes today exist but not as hunters. What interfered with tribal life were the fences, the strange ways, the roads, railroads and land claims -- all related to large scale agriculture. It wasn't guns. Even without guns everything would probably have gone similarly. The North American tribes persisted, continuing to exist and many still do today though there have been wars, and there has been extermination in places with, yes, guns involved. European spread in N America was not a single, simplistic massacre but a technological revolution. The North American tribes and USA eventually came to terms, but by the time the US clashed with Mexico that was already a European state.

South America was first decimated by bad land management by indigenous kingdoms followed by starvation, massive infighting for slaves and was ruled through such heavy superstition that it was open to manipulation. So weakened it was invaded at the worst possible time by Spain, admittedly a very vicious oppressor in that time. One can not say, however, that guns were the cause of South America's fall. Spain would have taken it without guns. The South American tribes mostly were wiped out through enslavement and reeducation, except those in the deep jungles.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Are your mentally or emotionally unstable?

Example...
John Doe, now 25, has been on several medications for being mentally and emotionally unstable since he was 10 years old. He has through his years tortured a few animals, had temper out bursts a few times but he has never been in trouble with the law.
A legal background checks won't reveal any of that.
In my opinion that person shouldn't be able to purchase a firearm.

What you have described is a psychopath/sociopath, which is actually more of a forensic psychological model of a certain kind of criminal, not a psychiatric diagnosis (Antisocial Personality Disorder would be the closest psychiatric diagnosis for that, but it's not exactly the same). Such people should not be allowed to own firearms if they have an inclination towards violence.

No, I'm basically the opposite of a psychopath.

 

[metis]

Its just clearly pointing out people kill people. And will find ways to do it regardless.

So, why make it easier to kill? Maybe we should legalize murder because we can't stop all murders? Maybe make rape legal because we can't stop all rapes?

I guess you'll just have to decide which is more important: machines that kill people or people themselves?

 

[We Never Know]

What you have described is a psychopath/sociopath, which is actually more of a forensic psychological model of a certain kind of criminal, not a psychiatric diagnosis (Antisocial Personality Disorder would be the closest psychiatric diagnosis for that, but it's not exactly the same). Such people should not be allowed to own firearms if they have an inclination towards violence.

No, I'm basically the opposite of a psychopath.

Yet a typical firearm background check on John Doe won't reveal that.

 

[We Never Know]

So, why make it easier to kill? Maybe we should legalize murder because we can't stop all murders? Maybe make rape legal because we can't stop all rapes?

I guess you'll just have to decide which is more important: machines that kill people or people themselves?

"Maybe we should legalize murder because we can't stop all murders? Maybe make rape legal because we can't stop all rapes?"

That's your defense?

 

[metis]

"Maybe we should legalize murder because we can't stop all murders? Maybe make rape legal because we can't stop all rapes?"

That's your defense?

It's an attempt to see if you actually care about people anywhere near as much to adoring your beloved guns. Thus, we having nothing in common on this topic at least.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yet a typical firearm background check on John Doe won't reveal that.

Psychopaths are notorious at being able to hide it through mimicking others. The smart ones, anyway. That's how Ted Bundy was able to fool so many people. Eric Harris is another example of a full-blown psychopath with murderous intent who was able to hide it from everyone by putting on a facade. He lied to everyone. They're often quite charming and personable, but it's all fake. They know they're different from others. They're not likely to even present for treatment in the first place, since they're not likely to see anything as being wrong with them due to their narcissism. This is a dilemma for society as a whole and there's no easy way to get around it.

 

[We Never Know]

It's an attempt to see if you actually care about people anywhere near as much to adoring your beloved guns. Thus, we having nothing in common on this topic at least.

My guns haven't killed anyone.

 

[We Never Know]

Psychopaths are notorious at being able to hide it through mimicking others. The smart ones, anyway. That's how Ted Bundy was able to fool so many people. Eric Harris is another example of a full-blown psychopath with murderous intent who was able to hide it from everyone by putting on a facade. He lied to everyone. They're often quite charming and personable, but it's all fake. They know they're different from others. They're not likely to even present for treatment in the first place, since they're not likely to see anything as being wrong with them due to their narcissism. This is a dilemma for society as a whole and there's no easy way to get around it.

Yet if they have been treated or under treatment and that was part of the firearm background check a red flag would pop up.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yet if they have been treated or under treatment and that was part of the firearm background check a red flag would pop up.

Again, they're not likely to present for treatment in the first place. Known instances of animal cruelty would likely be in a legal record as it's a crime in America.

Again, psychological testing, training and licensing seem to be the better ways to go with this, although no method of gun control will ever stop all mass shootings. The Columbine killers used illegally aquired guns, illegal homemade explosives and illegally modified their guns, anyway.

 

[metis]

My guns haven't killed anyone.

But a great many others have.

Let us know if you ever get to the point of feeling that people are more important than your toys, OK?

 

[We Never Know]

But a great many others have.

Let us know if you ever get to the point of feeling that people are more important than your toys, OK?

People are more important than my guns. That's why my guns haven't killed anyone.

 

[metis]

People are more important than my guns. That's why my guns haven't killed anyone.

If you ever manage to get over yourself and realize that this isn't all about you, then maybe we could have a serious discussion.

On second thought, ...

 

[We Never Know]

If you ever manage to get over yourself and realize that this isn't all about you, then maybe we could have a serious discussion.

On second thought, ...

If your ever get over yourself and realize not all guns kill people maybe we could have a serious discussion.

On second thought....

Seriously lets just say we disagree to agree.

 

[Lyndon]

Guns weren't the deciding factor either in South or North America. It was large scale agriculture. Indigenous North Americans actually benefited from hunting rifles and adopted them as well as horses. They saw the value of a rifle and adopted the rifle. They were adapting to farming, but the Europeans were already farmers. The land had been mostly emptied by plague, and as more Europeans came overseas and began to have children the land filled with farms and fences.

North America was first decimated by plagues not by Europeans. The population was cut down heavily such that the land was sparsely populated. Then large scale agriculture took hold, and whoever adopted that thrived.

What ended tribal ways in N. America was large scale agriculture -- the plow. Tribes today exist but not as hunters. What interfered with tribal life were the fences, the strange ways, the roads, railroads and land claims -- all related to large scale agriculture. It wasn't guns. Even without guns everything would probably have gone similarly. The North American tribes persisted, continuing to exist and many still do today though there have been wars, and there has been extermination in places with, yes, guns involved. European spread in N America was not a single, simplistic massacre but a technological revolution. The North American tribes and USA eventually came to terms, but by the time the US clashed with Mexico that was already a European state.

South America was first decimated by bad land management by indigenous kingdoms followed by starvation, massive infighting for slaves and was ruled through such heavy superstition that it was open to manipulation. So weakened it was invaded at the worst possible time by Spain, admittedly a very vicious oppressor in that time. One can not say, however, that guns were the cause of South America's fall. Spain would have taken it without guns. The South American tribes mostly were wiped out through enslavement and reeducation, except those in the deep jungles.

nonsense why are there so many American Indians in Mexico and hardly any in America; because they didn't slaughter them

 

[Brickjectivity]

nonsense why are there so many American Indians in Mexico and hardly any in America; because they didn't slaughter them

Point it wasn't the guns. Europeans would have used swords or other means. With or without guns the settlers were coming, the big farms were coming, and hunting and gathering was ending.

 

[metis]

nonsense why are there so many American Indians in Mexico and hardly any in America; because they didn't slaughter them

And this was at least partially due to the Catholic Church's teaching that killing them or enslaving them was immoral. However, it's immoral, imo, that the Church didn't extend that to blacks in regards to slavery.

 

[Kooky]

Guns weren't the deciding factor either in South or North America. It was large scale agriculture. Indigenous North Americans actually benefited from hunting rifles and adopted them as well as horses. They saw the value of a rifle and adopted the rifle. They were adapting to farming, but the Europeans were already farmers. The land had been mostly emptied by plague, and as more Europeans came overseas and began to have children the land filled with farms and fences

It's actually the other way round - many of the tribes that eventually became nomads on the Great Plains were refugees from European colonization.
The Lakota and other Sioux people, for example, were originally a collection of settled agricultural people living in the Ohio river valley and around the Great Lakes region. The land did not "fill with farms and fences", the US government deliberately built forts to intimidate or harass the native population outside its nominal territories, and encouraged illegal settling on land controlled by the Native tribes. What was the deciding factor in North America was a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing or even outright genocide on part of the US government, enacted over several generations.