Pennsylvania mayor arrested after pointing gun at group of teenagers, police say

originally posted by: nemonimity
a reply to: Krakatoa

Are you going to apologize for yours?

Just kinda sucks you when people misrepresent what you say and try to change your position huh?

Please explain how I misrepresented that statement? I could use a good laugh.

You, on the other hand, DID advocate for pre-crime in your own statement saying we should prevent people who can't handle a firearm from ownership. Beyond current laws that do just that, you are getting into the world of pre-crime assessment.

However, you fail to even admit that, don't you?

a reply to: Krakatoa

I don't know if you just don't pay attention to what you say or are avoiding your issue. You've insinuated multiple times I'm some how advocating thought crimes or pre crimes or some sort of precognition based justice system. Which only you have mentioned so I don''t know how else to interpret that.

I find it awesome though that you can't see yourself doing it but immediately react when its done to you.

originally posted by: nemonimity
a reply to: Krakatoa

I don't know if you just don't pay attention to what you say or are avoiding your issue. You've insinuated multiple times I'm some how advocating thought crimes or pre crimes or some sort of precognition based justice system. Which only you have mentioned so I don''t know how else to interpret that.

I find it awesome though that you can't see yourself doing it but immediately react when its done to you.

I am not the one advocating for pre-crime genius. You were the one that stated,

originally posted by: nemonimity

Of course not that's why I didn't say confiscation, the goal is to keep guns out of the hands of people who can't handle them not the ones who can.

Note the section I placed in bold font. How do you suppose we determine who is and is not capable of handling them? Isn't the act of determining, beforehand, who is capable and who is not, before they commit any crime, an attempt at pre-crime assessment?

How do you not see that in your own words?

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: nemonimity
a reply to: Krakatoa

I don't know if you just don't pay attention to what you say or are avoiding your issue. You've insinuated multiple times I'm some how advocating thought crimes or pre crimes or some sort of precognition based justice system. Which only you have mentioned so I don''t know how else to interpret that.

I find it awesome though that you can't see yourself doing it but immediately react when its done to you.

I am not the one advocating for pre-crime genius. You were the one that stated,

originally posted by: nemonimity

Of course not that's why I didn't say confiscation, the goal is to keep guns out of the hands of people who can't handle them not the ones who can.

Note the section I placed in bold font. How do do suppose we determine who is and is not capable of handling them? Isn't the act of determining, beforehand, who is capable and who is not, before they commit any crime, an attempt at pre-crime assessment?

How do you not see that in your own words?

If you didn't just point that out in a way a 2 year old could understand, I was going to, lol. Funny convo really.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I hate repeating myself and you seem caught up about someone else's thought process so this is gonna be it. As I've already stated we should judge people based on their actions. You can't go around confiscating weapons for fear of what someone might do. But if the goal of gun regulation is not to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them then whats the point?

And are you mad with this beforehand stuff? You've still come back to some kind of time travel mechanism to determine who should have guns, why in the world do we need some sort of sci-fi technology to know that people like the mentioned mayor don't deserve their guns, aren't his actions enough why does this weird sci-fi scheme you keep espousing need to exist?

Are you really so short sighted you think the only way to regulate gun ownership is through time travel/psychics and to stop people ahead of time rather than basing it off what they do after the fact? I'm personally not cool with that although it seems to weigh heavily on your mind.

a reply to: Krakatoa

If this happened in Florida, the story would be much juicier.

originally posted by: nemonimity
a reply to: Krakatoa

I hate repeating myself and you seem caught up about someone else's thought process so this is gonna be it. As I've already stated we should judge people based on their actions. You can't go around confiscating weapons for fear of what someone might do. But if the goal of gun regulation is not to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them then whats the point?

And are you mad with this beforehand stuff? You've still come back to some kind of time travel mechanism to determine who should have guns, why in the world do we need some sort of sci-fi technology to know that people like the mentioned mayor don't deserve their guns, aren't his actions enough why does this weird sci-fi scheme you keep espousing need to exist?

Are you really so short sighted you think the only way to regulate gun ownership is through time travel/psychics and to stop people ahead of time rather than basing it off what they do after the fact? I'm personally not cool with that although it seems to weigh heavily on your mind.

You really are dense aren't you?

Let me say this s...l...o...w...l...y....for you, so you can understand.
I...am...not...advocating....for...pre-crime.....assessments...... YOU...... ARE..... NOT..... ME....

I think people should be punished based upon the laws broken. And, as for firearm laws in this country, I believe the existing laws are sufficient to address the level of risk. If it wasn't we would be swimming in blood from the LITERALLY millions of firearms that are legally in possession by citizens.

However, a big difference between you and I is that I will openly apologize when I am wrong. I have done so numerous times just here on ATS, and will continue to do so when the situation calls. However, you refuse to even acknowledge your own words, from your own mind, when shown to you repeated times, is a dangerous mindset.

If this is still too confusing to you, I will willingly abdicate the discussion as talking to a wall (you).

a reply to: Krakatoa

OK I wasn't gonna respond but that's laughable, You can make up what ever "facts" you want but you're the only one mentioning this sci-fi tripe. I'll keep my innocent until proven guilty thank you lol.

originally posted by: nemonimity
a reply to: Krakatoa

OK I wasn't gonna respond but that's laughable, You can make up what ever "facts" you want but you're the only one mentioning this sci-fi tripe. I'll keep my innocent until proven guilty thank you lol.

If you are indeed embracing innocent until proven guilty, then you cannot agree with your own statement of,

keep guns out of the hands of people who can't handle them not the ones who can.

Because to do that, you need to assume people WILL commit crimes, so to keep firearms out of their hands, you would have to prevent them from having them in the first place. That is EXACTLY what your own statement says....whether you believe it or not, that is what it means.

Congrats on the hypocritical post of the day award. Say one thing, mean another.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Ok my turn to ask, what are you smoking? Gang bangers, thugs and madmen should have access to guns because innocent until proven guilty? Shouldn't we take those actions as proof of guilt especially once they've been formally found guilty? Don't their actions dictate that they should have those rights revoked? Why on earth would we not want to keep guns out of the hands of people who don't deserve them?

a reply to: nemonimity

Could you please expound upon and clarify your previous statement:

originally posted by: nemonimity

Of course not that's why I didn't say confiscation, the goal is to keep guns out of the hands of people who can't handle them not the ones who can.

Precisely what would accomplish the goal you state is the desired outcome?

Who and what determines, "who can't handle them?"

Not vague platitudes, I want a specific proposal. Otherwise I must assume you don't even understand your own words.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Jesus Christ I don't know where to go with you, I have stated so many times what my thoughts are. I have no interest in replying to you only to have you not read/accept what I have stated. I'm not repeating myself ad infinitum to make it look like something of value is being discussed in the thread. I've been clear in my statements and I've got no idea what weird fish your trolling for.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

oops, patience wearing thin, completely missed your another account, but points still stand, I've already stated that those who have committed crimes should have their rights revoked, I don't view laws as "would be nice to follows" if your not ok with a rule of law well not sure where to go with that.

a reply to: nemonimity

Isn't that already how it works? Pretty sure every state has laws restricting gun ownership for convicted felons. What would the purpose new laws be if the existing laws already account for that?

a reply to: nemonimity
and
a reply to: nemonimity

Maybe the fact that you have several different people asking you similar questions should clue you in to the fact that your original statement has strong implications that what you are proposing falls along the lines of a 'pre-crime' type of intervention.

If that is not what you mean, then please clarify your original statement of, "the goal is to keep guns out of the hands of people who can't handle them not the ones who can."

As Azdraik mentions, there are already laws that keep violent felons and the mentally incapable from legally owning firearms.

Considering that there are already laws in place that do what you've since said needs to be done, what more can be done, in your view to, "keep guns out of the hands of people who can't handle them," and who would be the parties responsible for making such determinations?

originally posted by: nemonimity
a reply to: Krakatoa

Ok my turn to ask, what are you smoking? Gang bangers, thugs and madmen should have access to guns because innocent until proven guilty? Shouldn't we take those actions as proof of guilt especially once they've been formally found guilty? Don't their actions dictate that they should have those rights revoked? Why on earth would we not want to keep guns out of the hands of people who don't deserve them?

Let me address each of your points, individually, so there is no confusion.

Q. You asked, "what are you smoking?"
A. A nice cigar, why does that matter?

Q: You asked, "gang bangers & thugs should have access to guns because innocent until proven guilty?"
A: If those "gang bangers & thugs" have not committed a crime that is a felony, then their rights are just as sound as yours or mine. There are already laws in place to prevent felons from legally possessing firearms. However, there is still a very lucrative black market willing to sell them one (or more) illegally if they wish. Only if caught can that be addressed. Having tattoos and acting tough, are not enough to warrant stripping a person of their rights.

Q: You asked, "madmen should have access to guns because innocent until proven guilty?"
A: Well, if they have been deemed "madmen" by a court of law, that too is already grounds according to law for their right to keep and bear arms to be stripped. If they act weird, eccentric, or not what "YOU" think is "normal" is not grounds for legally stripping anyone of their rights...not even close. It needs to go through a court of law, and the person is guaranteed due process before a right is stripped.

Q: You asked, "Shouldn't we take those actions as proof of guilt"?
A: No. Never. Due process must be granted before any action is deemed enough to strip a person of their rights. You added a clarification at the end of the sentence stating, "especially once they've been formally found guilty". And that is not just especially, but ONLY if they are found guilty. Anything more is an assumption of guilt and up to evaluation based upon "feelings" and what someone "might" do. That borders on pre-crime again. Which you stated you are against.

Q: You asked, "Why on earth would we not want to keep guns out of the hands of people who don't deserve them?"
A: Outside of due process and a court of law following the breaking of a law, what determines who is not "deserving". Last I checked, the United States Constitution does not grant us anything, neither does the government. It does, however protect us from inherent rights we are born with from the government stripping them from us without due process.

So, based upon this, what do you have left? Nothing that does not already exist in laws on the books and currently in enforcement. The job of police is to investigate crime, not to prevent crime. There is nothing, I repeat nothing, that is guaranteed to prevent crime.

originally posted by: nemonimity
a reply to: Krakatoa

Of course not that's why I didn't say confiscation, the goal is to keep guns out of the hands of people who can't handle them not the ones who can.

Who makes the determination ?
What would be the criteria ?
Didnt think that out too well , did ya ?