Time for President to take up issue of Knives

[MichaeltheGreat]

This has a more concrete foundation of evidence of preventing the type of horrific tragedies that occured at Newtown than any of the proposals floated by the President or other gun ban advocates.

To quote the President: If it saves one child's life, we have the duty to try!

Nice punt. How many are you prepared to lock up for how long on the guess that it might prevent a homicide? And what's the foundation of evidence? That article you cited?

[Krill]

Here's a hypothetical for your civil commitment:

Juvenile arrest record (sealed so it takes time to get the case files, if still around)
Army service in Vietnam
Deserted
Bad Conduct Discharge
1.5 years in-patient treatment at VA mental facilities.
Diagnosed as Manic-Depressive (Bipolar now, but not back then)
Later diagnosed as PTSD
Familiarity with, proficiency with and interest in knives and firearms
Periods of social withdrawal and homelessness
Two misdemeanor arrests (vagrancy)

So, what's your vote?

Is that Sloww?

[PLATO]

The "likely to become violent" is the problem. It's interesting to me that generally conservative people who have qualms about the government having the power to restrict gun ownership, commerce and manufacture, aren't even more concerned with the notion of government having some power to engage in "civil commitment" without a crime being committed or due process being observed. We've already had that history of abuse to some extent.

It is true that I am for smaller and limited government, but that does not mean that I am for no government. I believe that there is action that can be taken short of "civil commitment" as well. Identifying "at risk" people who are already under some sort of mental care and working to provide viable treatment combined with doing what can be done to restrict their access to weapons of any kind seems more sensible to me than to just blanket wide limit everybody's rights.

There are some people (our present leadership as well imo) that just don't like guns. Okay...fine. There are also people who want to have one. That should be fine also. Gun control does not address the problems that cause violence. This is my point...we need to work the problems. It is a huge undertaking. It is not just people with mental illness...it includes a huge host of problems. Racial inequality and lack of economic opportunity to just name a couple. Restricting people to 5 bullets in a magazine is supposed to be a solution?

[PLATO]

1. It's "hypocrisy".
2. It's not hypocrisy given that guns are a lot more scary and dangerous than knives. Also, I think anyone would love it if we could just make people less inclined to engage in violence in general, any ideas?

1.) Thanks. I guess my "southern" education is showing.

2.) I have never seen a violent gun. I have only seen violent people. A gun is not scary in any way unless you have a fear of inanimate objects. It is some people who are scary.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Is that Sloww?

Sloww was air force.

[DinoDoc]

Nice punt. How many are you prepared to lock up for how long on the guess that it might prevent a homicide?

How many burdens is the President trying to put in front of people exercising thier Constitutional rights on the hope it will prevent gun crime?

As for the number of people, as many as we did before O'Connor v. Donaldson.

[PLATO]

Let's look at one more thing. "Likely to become violent".

If you are "likely to have heart disease", would you not be for making available preventative treatments? Mental illness is just that...an illness. Where it differs is that the illness itself can cause someone to not seek treatment. What is the role of government if it is not to provide for this individuals welfare and to protect society from harm they may cause. I guess people are okay with quarantines for a virus, but we can't intervene in this situation? That just doesn't add up to me!

[DaShi]

Let's look at one more thing. "Likely to become violent".

If you are "likely to have heart disease", would you not be for making available preventative treatments? Mental illness is just that...an illness. Where it differs is that the illness itself can cause someone to not seek treatment. What is the role of government if it is not to provide for this individuals welfare and to protect society from harm they may cause. I guess people are okay with quarantines for a virus, but we can't intervene in this situation? That just doesn't add up to me!

So now we are in favor of Obamacare?

[PLATO]

So now we are in favor of Obamacare?

Haha! I still believe that there are huge huge problems with that legislation in its current form, but there are some things I like about it. I'll mention some of them if we ever have another Obamacare sux thread.

[DaShi]

Oh Plato, that's why I like you.

[MichaeltheGreat]

It is true that I am for smaller and limited government, but that does not mean that I am for no government. I believe that there is action that can be taken short of "civil commitment" as well. Identifying "at risk" people who are already under some sort of mental care and working to provide viable treatment combined with doing what can be done to restrict their access to weapons of any kind seems more sensible to me than to just blanket wide limit everybody's rights.

I don't have any issue with expanded outpatient mental health services and resources, but getting from there to restricting access to weapons is pretty tough, unless you also impose mandatory reporting, background checks or other controls on private party transactions.

There are some people (our present leadership as well imo) that just don't like guns. Okay...fine. There are also people who want to have one. That should be fine also. Gun control does not address the problems that cause violence.

That's a common perception, but I'm not sure how accurate it is. I don't particularly "like" them, in contrast to say, my sawzall , but I'm proficient with both. Gun control doesn't address the causes of violence, but I think the failure of things like magazine restrictions is the sheer number already out there which would be non-compliant.

Volume of fire has been a basic component of military science for a couple of centuries. We went from firing lines with smooth bore muskets to Minié balls to breech loaders, then to magazines, so we could lose the firing line and decrease troop density while still increasing volume of fire. Then dowrated caliber between the M-14 and M-16, because you could almost double the amount of ammo carried in a standard combat load. So sustainable volume of fire has a correlation to lethality (although its primary, but not total, purpose is suppression) for infantry tactics. It's hard to take that established pattern and years of analysis and say it doesn't apply in a civilian mass homicide situation.

This is my point...we need to work the problems. It is a huge undertaking. It is not just people with mental illness...it includes a huge host of problems. Racial inequality and lack of economic opportunity to just name a couple.

I agree with you there, but with the full spectrum of viewpoints on what the problems are, how to address them, and how to fund it all, I see those issues as intractible when we can't even pass a normal budget and compromise is a four letter word in politics.

Restricting people to 5 bullets in a magazine is supposed to be a solution?

It's just supposed to superficially resemble one, since that's about the limits of what's doable in the current political climate. BTW, I thought the limit was still 7 or 10?

[MichaeltheGreat]

How many burdens is the President trying to put in front of people exercising thier Constitutional rights on the hope it will prevent gun crime?

Some extra paperwork and not being able to jerk off to a 30 round clip is somehow equatable to locking someone up indefinitely without them committing a crime?

As for the number of people, as many as we did before O'Connor v. Donaldson.

You should be the punter for Ole Miss. That's as non-responsive an answer as I've seen from you, since Donaldson only addressed the legal issue of involuntary confinement of an individual for whom the state conceded there was no indication of danger to self or others. You should also read the full opinion, and look at the conditions under which Donaldson was confined, and then answer whether a system that inept could be trusted to make the determination that someone was "potentially violent" and should thus be confined.

[PLATO]

I don't have any issue with expanded outpatient mental health services and resources, but getting from there to restricting access to weapons is pretty tough, unless you also impose mandatory reporting, background checks or other controls on private party transactions.

I think we should look at some type of mandatory reporting. The fear is that the reports will be abused and why the confidentiality of mental disease is so entrenched. This is where a large amount of research and study is needed.

That's a common perception, but I'm not sure how accurate it is. I don't particularly "like" them, in contrast to say, my sawzall , but I'm proficient with both. Gun control doesn't address the causes of violence, but I think the failure of things like magazine restrictions is the sheer number already out there which would be non-compliant.

Volume of fire has been a basic component of military science for a couple of centuries. We went from firing lines with smooth bore muskets to Minié balls to breech loaders, then to magazines, so we could lose the firing line and decrease troop density while still increasing volume of fire. Then dowrated caliber between the M-14 and M-16, because you could almost double the amount of ammo carried in a standard combat load. So sustainable volume of fire has a correlation to lethality (although its primary, but not total, purpose is suppression) for infantry tactics. It's hard to take that established pattern and years of analysis and say it doesn't apply in a civilian mass homicide situation.

There is a fundamental difference that you are overlooking. In a military situation, the other side is usually shooting back. What is to stop someone who has a 20 round magizine from reloading twice? Or, to address current proposals..4 or 5 times? The answer is...nothing! Limiting the capacity of magizines means that these murderers will simply bring more magizines. I believe that every major shooting in the last 40 years has taken place in "gun free zones", has it not?

I agree with you there, but with the full spectrum of viewpoints on what the problems are, how to address them, and how to fund it all, I see those issues as intractible when we can't even pass a normal budget and compromise is a four letter word in politics.

Extremely valid points! We begin to narrow in on the REAL problem...

It's just supposed to superficially resemble one, since that's about the limits of what's doable in the current political climate. BTW, I thought the limit was still 7 or 10?

You are probably right. I do not know the actual limit being proposed. My point is, that for the situation they are trying to control, that it is not relevant.

[DinoDoc]

Some extra paperwork and not being able to jerk off to a 30 round clip is somehow equatable to locking someone up indefinitely without them committing a crime?

Jerking off to the altar of For The Children by making needless hurdles to law abiding people exercising their Constitutional rights which isn't going to solve the problem anyway is akin to locking a person judged dangerous by his caregivers in order to get them the treatment they need?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Haha! I still believe that there are huge huge problems with that legislation in its current form, but there are some things I like about it. I'll mention some of them if we ever have another Obamacare sux thread.

It had to be passed for you to be able to know what was in it.

Basically Obamacare prohibits use of medical information when determining ownership of guns or vice versa ownership of guns on medical insurance rates.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolynm...is-in-the-law/