An honest unusual discussion about firearms

a reply to: RAY1990


Sometimes it's best to focus on positive things & positive people, and then ignore or discard the negative stuff.

Something like 10 years ago, I cut off almost all of my fake friends and the people who were bringing negativity into my life. It made a massive difference in my own level of happiness and it drastically reduced the amount of trouble & bad spots that I was getting in. I started intentionally hanging around other kind, positive, and sometimes admittedly "lame/boring" people, and they've been my biggest supporters and best friends ever since. (note: There's nothing wrong w/being "lame", and I' make all kinds of lame puns with my nephew.)

As for the 4th option of deescalation, it's not as rare as it seems. Not counting police, I've had guns pulled on me 5 separate times by 5 separate people. But not once was I robbed, forced to do anything, or shot, and I never had to beg or plead for my life either. In fact, not a single one of them fired a shot at all (the only times I've had shots fired in my direction were when I was a bystander).

Now don't get me wrong, that's nothing to brag about and clearly my luck can run out if there's a 6th incident. But I'm just pointing out that it's always better for everyone involved if people learn how to read a moment and deescalate a situation. Sometimes a simple apology or explanation of the misunderstanding works, as lame as that sounds lol. I don't think that everyone can be reasoned with, especially if an incident is premeditated, the person is intoxicated, or if the person has real mental issues. But if the person is sane, sober, and just got caught up in the moment, it's a lot easier to deescalate things.

This conversation still confuses me ...

The medical system as a whole and the pharmaceutical establishment kill more people every day.
None of you are jumping up and down about this.

And it's a silent killer, like a coward....

You big tough gun wielding wanna be manly thugs, are only frightened of losing 'toys'. Truly.

Those two industries I just mentioned still kill/murder people, daily. IN your country AND mine.

I purposely avoided being sucked into ANY group here that DOES have access to guns.
There's a reason for that...and it's called self policing.

Guns don't equal smarts OR bravery, as evidence by the comments in this thread...

I bet you missed me......x

A lot of pages since yesterday. So did this prove to be any different than any other firearms discussion we've had here?

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Shamrock6

As ardent a supporter as I am of the 2nd, I also understand that some people shouldn’t have firearms. Mental defect? Absolutely. But that’s where you and I differ: I think the government should be required to prove, and I mean prove in the legal sense, that a person has a mental deficiency. It shouldn’t be the citizen’s burden to prove they’re not mentally deficient. I also don’t think violent felons should have access to firearms.

Basically, I just want something like mandatory psychological evaluations and/or mental health testing every 3 to 6 months for gun ownership. The exact details can be up for debate.

And who do think is going to pay for those evaluations or mental health testing? The average gun owner, who might be having a hard time just to financially support himself or his family?

What you effectively support --- imho --- is a near total ban on guns, because the average gun owner in the U.S. won't be able to have the ways or means to financially pay for that kind of stringent mental health testing.

Keep your guns....my honest opinion...


BUT...if the person who mass killed people is in anyway associated with psychiatrists or anti psychotic drugs....or a concerted psychological hazing from those same, and their 'associates'...

you should know what to do...by now.

a reply to: Erno86

1. Do you have stats to show that "the average gun owner" can't afford a psychological evaluation every 6 months?

2. I don't know about you, but it's the law that we have to pay car insurance once a month or a lump sum every 6 months where I stay. I don't see why people who want to own guns can't also pay the equivalent to keep the rest of us safe. It can even be merged into gun owner's insurance, gun liability insurance, or even into a gun owner's license at a reduced rate.

3. Life insurance companies and health insurance companies pay far more money on settlements for gun related injuries & deaths. Families pay far more money for funerals and/or gun related hospital bills. And tax payers pay far more money for policing, prosecuting, and imprisoning people for gun related crimes. So I'm not buying the argument that money is only an issue when it's inconvenient for your argument.

ETA:
4. Maybe the NRA or other lobbyists can get free or reduced rate mental health testing included into a health care bill. I personally think that health insurance should be giving yearly mental health checks anyway.

a reply to: intrepid

I'm in it, so that's different (and better, muahahaha!).

a reply to: enlightenedservant

1. Most people are living paycheck to paycheck. Deciding for someone else what they can and cannot afford is just wrong. Especially when you've never met them. ETA: i should add that "the average person" is a consideration that is unconstitutional. It may be a standard in use...but it ignores individuals and their rights, average or not.

2. No. If any insurance scam were instituted for gun ownership, i'd not participate. It won't change the gun ownership though. I suspect you'd have enormous push back that escalates into violence on a national level if something like this were tried.

3. The amount of money insurers pay out is not my concern. I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of murders happen in the same areas over and over. It stands to reason that not being in those areas is going to decrease morbidity rates. Thus, it would seem that the dead person had far more responsibility for their safety than me, a complete stranger.

4. The only way to start improving mental health care is to divorce the diagnosis from the degradation of rights. Swooping people up into hospitals with questionable compliance to patients rights, losing freedom of movement, losing access to constitutional freedoms...the social stigma is one thing, but the extra punch in the gut hurts just as much. I have no solutions really...but i do see a huge problem.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Your draconian proposal sounds like an Orwellian nightmare, that every legal/future legal gun owner should stand up to.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: enlightenedservant

You are actually one of the people I missed interacting with, here.


Insurance is an extension of those same 'controls' that frighten people into joining, out of fear, or making laws that you MUST join.
They make examples out of people with 'big' social media profiles now...to sell/'push' more policies, based on fear. At least here.

Third party injury (physically) on your registration for your car is the only one I see merit in...after 40 odd years.
the rest are a scam.
The interest alone, that they accrue on that amount of money, means they should NEVER decline a claim, except their motto is decline first, second, third, fourth ...etc...you get the picture...most people give up. They hope for this.

It's wrong.

They got busy thinking of ways to 'carve' up your income....give it...take it....right?

Private health
Car
House
pets
public liability

I'm sure I'm forgetting a few...

It's wrong.


It's a system that allows you to work for money but take back as much if not more than you earn...

It's not sustainable...they know this.


It's billions and billion for THEM every year....guns? are the least of everyone's problems...

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Your draconian proposal sounds like an Orwellian nightmare, that every legal/future legal gun owner should stand up to.

My family & myself should stand up to me? Whoa, it's great to know that you speak for us. (facepalm)

Let's be clear. Your concerns are no more valid than mine and your opinions hold no more weight than mine. I'm just as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours, and my opinion is that far too many of the wrong people have easy access to guns. Blindly adding more guns and eliminating gun regulations is only going to lead to more shootings, not less. Nobody's going to change those opinions, especially when they can't even present me with a logical explanation of why I'm "wrong".

And don't think that I didn't notice how you completely ignored my 4 points. It gives the impression that you have no answer to them. You're not admitting defeat, are you?

a reply to: Amandarc

I agree that many times insurance is scam. And I also think that many times (but not all times), people don't even need insurance and they're actually just paying for peace of mind or to be compliant with the law.

I was just using a gun owner's insurance policy or a gun liability policy as an example of when they can institute the mental health checks for gun owners. A better option would probably be free mental health evaluations every year as a part of existing health insurance plans, since those would be helpful to the citizen for a lot of other reasons.

a reply to: Erno86

Mental evaluations should be provided by the state, i.e., paid for by all of our taxes.

That’s my opinion, anyway.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I believe that --- bigfatfurrytexan's last post covered your last 4 points --- and that he's on target with logical explanations that I agree with.

I only referred to the possible Orwellian type gun regulations being put up by the state or federal government, and nothing personal to you or your family and friends.

I'm not for eliminating all state and federal gun regulations.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Erno86

Mental evaluations should be provided by the state, i.e., paid for by all of our taxes.

That’s my opinion, anyway.

That's on the slippery road to a police state, my friend.

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Erno86

Mental evaluations should be provided by the state, i.e., paid for by all of our taxes.

That’s my opinion, anyway.

That's on the slippery road to a police state, my friend.

Uh huh. Just let crazy people keep on gettin’ guns. Cuz that’s workin’ out great for us.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Erno86

Mental evaluations should be provided by the state, i.e., paid for by all of our taxes.

That’s my opinion, anyway.

That's on the slippery road to a police state, my friend.

Uh huh. Just let crazy people keep on gettin’ guns. Cuz that’s workin’ out great for us.

Ya...guess who's the craziest --- does our U.S. Commander in Chief ring a bell?

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Erno86

1. Do you have stats to show that "the average gun owner" can't afford a psychological evaluation every 6 months?

2. I don't know about you, but it's the law that we have to pay car insurance once a month or a lump sum every 6 months where I stay. I don't see why people who want to own guns can't also pay the equivalent to keep the rest of us safe. It can even be merged into gun owner's insurance, gun liability insurance, or even into a gun owner's license at a reduced rate.

3. Life insurance companies and health insurance companies pay far more money on settlements for gun related injuries & deaths. Families pay far more money for funerals and/or gun related hospital bills. And tax payers pay far more money for policing, prosecuting, and imprisoning people for gun related crimes. So I'm not buying the argument that money is only an issue when it's inconvenient for your argument.

ETA:
4. Maybe the NRA or other lobbyists can get free or reduced rate mental health testing included into a health care bill. I personally think that health insurance should be giving yearly mental health checks anyway.

Serious question. If the vast majority of gun violence is committed by illegally obtained guns, what good does insurance do? Those committing the crimes are already breaking multiple state and federal laws, so how does insurance prevent gun crime?

I have no problem with home policies covering the fact there is a firearm in the home, much like if you had swimming pool or even certain breeds of dogs. However, people getting shot accidentally in the home is not really the crux of gun deaths.

How is insurance going to lower gun violence in Chicago when probably 90% of it is Tyshaun reppin Gangster Disciples is mad that his "opps" LaQuan is repping Black Disciples. They both just happen to be banging the same THOT and mad because they were dissed on Instagram. Where does insurance come into play in this scenario?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Do you have stats to show that "the average gun owner" can't afford a psychological evaluation every 6 months?

I and my wife both know different families that hunt year round because that is the only way they can keep meat on the table.
If they cant afford to buy meat, I will wager they cannot afford a pysch eval.

As for me personally, Ive been cleared to work around nukes and find it personally insulting that you think I need a pysch eval twice a year to own a gun.

But maybe I'm a little tired so taking things as they shouldn't.

a reply to: Edumakated

If the vast majority of gun violence is committed by illegally obtained guns, what good does insurance do?

That's my beef with the idea. The overwhelming majority of gun crime comes from people who obtained the firearm illegally in one way or another.

So what real, tangible impact is it going to have to require me to pay for this insurance or pay for that liability or submit to bi-annual mental competency testing? Sure, it'll catch a person or two now and then, but it's akin to putting a band-aid on a papercut while you ignore the arterial bleed from the leg.