It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Four kids, two adults shot dead near Houston

page: 24
20
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 05:14 AM
link   
a reply to: 8675309jenny

At what point ever did i give you ANY impression that I thought that murder didn't exist prior to guns?

What i have been TRYING to explain this entire thread is that we need stronger legislation and enforcement to keep guns out of the hands of dangerously insane people.

I don't want to ban a single gun. I don't know where you got that idea.




posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 06:06 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

but you keep glossing over the FACT that there are already laws on the books to keep just those kinds of people from getting firearms....

and you're also failing to understand that NO LAW will keep someone who wants a gun, from getting one...

your entire argument is moot..



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 06:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

As evidenced by the amount of mass shootings, and the fact that most guns used in mass shootings are legally acquired, the law is inadequate.

The fact that general gun violence has gone down over the last 20 years shows that the current laws are being enforced.

But the fact that some people who should have never been able to buy a gun legally have, shows that a change needs to be made.

No, we are never going to eliminate gun violence completely, that does not mean we shouldn't try.



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

I'm still waiting for you to define what seriously mentally ill, crazy, or insane mean so that we can get a baseline of who is normal and who are the freaks who aren't allowed to own guns.
edit on 17-7-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

and what difference does it make if they are purchasing it legally from a dealer, or illegally, from a black market vendor?

they still have a gun, and they're still going to commit a crime with it...

the entire argument is silly



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

you must have missed when he copped out, and said it was for a professional to make the determination..

he can call people names, but when asked to define the name he's calling them, he says it's for someone else to say what it means....so i suppose that would mean that he's using words he doesn't really know..

or reacting, based on his feels, lol

any road, it's a pretty weak argument..



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

www.detroitnews.com...

One of those "trained" officers, that went through your holy grail mental evaluation just stated that crime is down as a whole, due to armed citizens.


Your full of crap ideals have got to make your head hurt.



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: XTexan

the 4473 is not pointless.

It is inquiring you to self admit to some questions,
that if answered in a certain way (truthfully) would
lead you to be ineligible to purchase a firearm.

it is an attempt to implement several laws and regulations
to restrict felons, mentally ill, and drug addicts from purchasing a weapon.
also aliens and dishonorably discharged service members.


Yes, but as a form that is being submitted to the government, you cannot be compelled to be awitness against yourself. It asks if you do drugs, which is a federal crime. As such you don't have to answer that question.



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

Ah, what is the difference?

Well, it hurt's your argument a lot if someone with mental illness obtains a firearm legally, and uses it to commit any sort of crime, or kills themselves with it.

Can't stop someone from obtaining a gun illegally right? (well we can and do, and the illegal gun issue is being addressed by already existing law)

But we get people with documented mental illness as defined by a physician. Legally able to purchase a firearm, then use that firearm to commit a mass murder. This is an issue we can address.



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

I see you have a biased against those with mental illnesses. That is a sad way to go through life.

So, what happens when someone doesn't have a mental illness and they kill someone with a firearm?

And again, which mental illness are you wanting prohibited from legally owning a firearm?



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

So, you also seems to have no problem with someone with a mental illness killing others with say, fire. Or a knife. Or a car.

Your fake outrage really is telling, to anyone that reads this thread.



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok


Can't stop someone from obtaining a gun illegally right? (well we can and do, and the illegal gun issue is being addressed by already existing law)


And what law stops this from happening again?



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   
The trolling is really sad here.

I'm not trying to ban anyone that should have a gun from having a gun. All I am saying is that perhaps people who are deemed mentally ill by a professional might not be the best people to hand a gun to.

The real gun problem is mental health, not the NRA


Next time there's a mass shooting, don't jump to blame the National Rifle Association and lax gun laws. Look first at the shooter and the mental health services he did or didn't get, and the commitment laws in the state where the shooting took place.

Strengthening gun control won't stop the next mass shooter, but changing our attitudes, the treatment options we offer and the laws for holding the mentally unstable and mentally ill for treatment just might.

Take the case of the recent mass shooting incident in Isla Vista, California. Police say Elliot Rodger went on a killing spree near the University of California campus in Santa Barbara, shooting and stabbing victims, killing six and wounding 13 before he killed himself.


Debate over gun control, mental health starts anew


Elliot Rodger's rampage Friday is the latest in a growing list of mass killings that highlight the complicated intersection of mental illness and access to guns. The killing spree followed a host of red flags and has again raised the question: What can be done to prevent such tragedies?

How was Elliot Rodger able to purchase weapons?

"The truth is it may be a failure for all of us. We are not doing enough to help our mentally ill, there is no doubt," constitutional law professor and Second Amendment expert Adam Winkler told CBS News.

"We are making it too easy for people who are mentally ill to get access to guns. It's just very difficult to know exactly what would be the rule to put in place that would avoid some of these horrendous killings"


Guns & Mental Health


Under a federal law enacted in 1968, an individual is prohibited from buying or possessing firearms for life if he/she has been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution.” A person is “adjudicated as a mental defective” if a court—or other entity having legal authority to make adjudications—has made a determination that an individual, as a result of mental illness: 1) Is a danger to himself or to others; 2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs; 3) Is found insane by a court in a criminal case, or incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. A person is “committed to a mental institution” if that person has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution by a court or other lawful authority. This expressly excludes voluntary commitment. It should be noted, however, that federal law now allows states to establish procedures for mentally ill individuals to restore their right to possess and purchase firearms (many states have done so at the behest of the National Rifle Association, with questionable results).

Following a series of mass shootings from 2007-2012 perpetrated by gunmen who suffered from serious mental illness (Virginia Tech, Tucson, and Aurora, among others)—and who in many cases legally purchased the firearms they used to kill with—there has been a great deal of conversation about what more can be done to keep firearms away from such individuals.

It is undoubtedly true that people who are a danger to self and/or others because of mental illness should be prohibited from owning firearms. It is less clear, however, how to tailor new policies to better protect the American public while at the same time avoiding the stigmatization of Americans with mental illness. Any strategy to address the lethal intersection between guns and mental illness should focus of three key facts:

A large majority of people with mental disorders will never engage in violence against others.
Most violent behavior is due to factors other than mental illness.
Psychiatric disorders such as depression are strongly implicated in suicide, which accounts for more than half of gun fatalities annually.


It's a complicated issue, that takes more than people being deliberately obtuse to solve.



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

Restricting gun sakes to everyone who is called crazy or enemy by the u.s government

Is calling for a defacto ban

It is what it is



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

Some people need to have their guns taken from them. Certainly a few in this thread if you want my opinion shouldn't be near anything more powerful than a straw and a wad of paper.

That's my opinion though.

Some people won't be satisfied till toddlers are given a gun as soon as they are able to sit up on their own, and they think that every person leaving prison should be immediately issued a firearm of their choice and a map to the nearest liquor store.

But more realistic ideas have to prevail.

One is that people that are seriously mentally ill do not need to be in possession of a firearm. I'm not the one to define it, nor diagnose it, nor make the list. But professionals who talk to these individuals should be able to make that recommendation.



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

I love the "its complicated" statement for a simple statement, where the last 4 words are "shall not be infringed".

It has to be very clear, cut and dry, black and white.

You and other Progressives LOVE to hide behind the grey area crap. It gets really old.


So, let's recap.

You want firearm violence to stop, but don't want to ban all firearms. You are disingenuous to your cause.

You are concerned with just firearm violence, but not violence outside of firearm usage. Again, disingenuous.

You say you don't want to ban ALL firearms, just banning certain people from obtaining firearms. Elitists in nature.

You willfully, and continually omit portions of laws/statutes/rights in an attempt to show a foundation to violate a persons Rights, already defined.

You only want to violate a Right, just a little bit.

You have failed to provide any, not one, example of a mental illness that should be prohibited from owning a firearm.

You continually refuse to address specific items, posed to you. Most retorts are hyperbole in nature and could just be extracted as talking points from any number of Anti-2nd groups.

So, what say you. Care to actually address anything? Or will you just respond with items like the above, article talking in circles about mental health, identifying not one thing as to what within a mental illness will prohibit someone.
Or how about "Shall not be infringed"?



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

nice emotional unbased argument

As has been pointed out

Anyone can snap

At almost anytime

So since we are all potential gunmen

And u want to keep guns away from all potential gunmen

Yiu are calli n g for a defacto ban

Admit thats what u want and stop tryng to get around that by not outright calling for a ban

Instead u ban guns by calling everyone who wants a gun crazy



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok


I say we take away your rights too especially the first one.





posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
The trolling is really sad here.

I'm not trying to ban anyone that should have a gun from having a gun. All I am saying is that perhaps people who are deemed mentally ill by a professional might not be the best people to hand a gun to.

The real gun problem is mental health, not the NRA


Next time there's a mass shooting, don't jump to blame the National Rifle Association and lax gun laws. Look first at the shooter and the mental health services he did or didn't get, and the commitment laws in the state where the shooting took place.

Strengthening gun control won't stop the next mass shooter, but changing our attitudes, the treatment options we offer and the laws for holding the mentally unstable and mentally ill for treatment just might.

Take the case of the recent mass shooting incident in Isla Vista, California. Police say Elliot Rodger went on a killing spree near the University of California campus in Santa Barbara, shooting and stabbing victims, killing six and wounding 13 before he killed himself.


Debate over gun control, mental health starts anew


Elliot Rodger's rampage Friday is the latest in a growing list of mass killings that highlight the complicated intersection of mental illness and access to guns. The killing spree followed a host of red flags and has again raised the question: What can be done to prevent such tragedies?

How was Elliot Rodger able to purchase weapons?

"The truth is it may be a failure for all of us. We are not doing enough to help our mentally ill, there is no doubt," constitutional law professor and Second Amendment expert Adam Winkler told CBS News.

"We are making it too easy for people who are mentally ill to get access to guns. It's just very difficult to know exactly what would be the rule to put in place that would avoid some of these horrendous killings"


Guns & Mental Health


Under a federal law enacted in 1968, an individual is prohibited from buying or possessing firearms for life if he/she has been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution.” A person is “adjudicated as a mental defective” if a court—or other entity having legal authority to make adjudications—has made a determination that an individual, as a result of mental illness: 1) Is a danger to himself or to others; 2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs; 3) Is found insane by a court in a criminal case, or incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. A person is “committed to a mental institution” if that person has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution by a court or other lawful authority. This expressly excludes voluntary commitment. It should be noted, however, that federal law now allows states to establish procedures for mentally ill individuals to restore their right to possess and purchase firearms (many states have done so at the behest of the National Rifle Association, with questionable results).

Following a series of mass shootings from 2007-2012 perpetrated by gunmen who suffered from serious mental illness (Virginia Tech, Tucson, and Aurora, among others)—and who in many cases legally purchased the firearms they used to kill with—there has been a great deal of conversation about what more can be done to keep firearms away from such individuals.

It is undoubtedly true that people who are a danger to self and/or others because of mental illness should be prohibited from owning firearms. It is less clear, however, how to tailor new policies to better protect the American public while at the same time avoiding the stigmatization of Americans with mental illness. Any strategy to address the lethal intersection between guns and mental illness should focus of three key facts:

A large majority of people with mental disorders will never engage in violence against others.
Most violent behavior is due to factors other than mental illness.
Psychiatric disorders such as depression are strongly implicated in suicide, which accounts for more than half of gun fatalities annually.


It's a complicated issue, that takes more than people being deliberately obtuse to solve.





More zombie lies.



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

it doesn't hurt my argument at all....the fact that you think so, tells me that you are either NOT paying attention to what i'm saying, or you're being deliberately dense...you're not interested in having a real conversation, all you want to do is stick your fingers in your ears, shout "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA" whenever someone says something that invalidates your argument, and then pretend it was never said, so you can keep saying the same nonsense over and over again..

if someone with a "mental illness" obtains a firearm from a dealer, or from the black market, why does the method by which he came to be in possession of the thing matter? the end result is the same....he/she will either use it for defense, or if they so desire, they will commit a crime with it.

how is it that you do not understand this?



new topics




 
20
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join