Is Joe the Plumber correct??

[UaVaj]

Why does it have to stop with guns don't kill people, people kill people. Why can't it be dynamite or nukes? I think, based on your outstanding argument, that we should be able to have all of those things, especially since they, by themselves, don't kill anyone.

Do you not agree?

you do bring up a very good point. where do we draw the line?

obviously the inanimate object is not the culprit. it is the individual who has control of that weapon is the real threat.

so the real question is. how do we control the individual?

-----

this is strictly my honest opinion. with great power (rather that be nuke, dynamite, guns, car, or spoons) comes great responsibilities. so to own such weapon.
(1) one must prove one's competency to the state. this would be licensing.
next.
(2) one must accept "full" responsibility for the weapon. you must know where your weapon is at all times 24/7. this would be security.
(3) if your weapon used in a crime. you are automatically an accessories. do not want that responsibilities. then do not own inanimate object with great powers.

all about choices.

 

[fskimospy]

Wait, you think it's fine for someone to own a thermonuclear weapon so long as they know how to use it and accept responsibility for the results of its detonation?

Holy shit. Someone needs a dose of reality.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Of course, we've already demonstrated you can leave one unattended on your front porch and no one will bother it.

 

[UaVaj]

Wait, you think it's fine for someone to own a thermonuclear weapon so long as they know how to use it and accept responsibility for the results of its detonation?

Holy shit. Someone needs a dose of reality.

that someone is called the president. obviously you did not know any better.

actually you choose to ignore that fact, just like all the other facts.

 

[TerryMathews]

Wait, you think it's fine for someone to own a thermonuclear weapon so long as they know how to use it and accept responsibility for the results of its detonation?

Holy shit. Someone needs a dose of reality.

How do you know people don't already own them? :sly:

 

[Bird222]

you do bring up a very good point. where do we draw the line?

obviously the inanimate object is not the culprit. it is the individual who has control of that weapon is the real threat.

so the real question is. how do we control the individual?

-----

this is strictly my honest opinion. with great power (rather that be nuke, dynamite, guns, car, or spoons) comes great responsibilities. so to own such weapon.
(1) one must prove one's competency to the state. this would be licensing.
next.
(2) one must accept "full" responsibility for the weapon. you must know where your weapon is at all times 24/7. this would be security.
(3) if your weapon used in a crime. you are automatically an accessories. do not want that responsibilities. then do not own inanimate object with great powers.

all about choices.

Even though a lot of what you have said I don't agree with but I agree with this one thing. The problem is the 'gun nuts' don't seem to agree with that. People should have to show their responsibility in some way before they are allowed such power. Furthermore, I know what the 2A says, but even in a discussion these people don't agree with this. Ultimately, the 2A needs to be modified in some way. BTW this comes from a guy that likes guns but I want them in the hands of knowledgeable and responsible people.

 

[fskimospy]

that someone is called the president. obviously you did not know any better.

actually you choose to ignore that fact, just like all the other facts.

Nope. As I already said he doesn't have sole authority. I guess you just didn't know any better, haha.

 

[UaVaj]

Nope. As I already said he doesn't have sole authority. I guess you just didn't know any better, haha.

you are obviously arguing for the sake or arguing without adding any more substance. until you have some substance to add. will ignore your posts. so post till you are blue.

 

[fskimospy]

you are obviously arguing for the sake or arguing without adding any more substance. until you have some substance to add. will ignore your posts. so post till you are blue.

No, that's exactly what you are doing. You have consistently refused to defend the obviously ridiculous consequences of the position you put forth. If you can't defend your position, maybe you should rethink it.

 

[Victorian Gray]

you are obviously arguing for the sake or arguing without adding any more substance. until you have some substance to add. will ignore your posts. so post till you are blue.

Hope you were looking in a mirror when you wrote this.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Maybe we should do both.

I can agree to that. However, it seems that the focus every time something bad happens with a gun, the gun crowds--both sides--get in a fury and downplay the role of the shooter.

 

[JockoJohnson]

In this particular case, it seems like he had a lot mental health evaluations. The reason why they didn't amount to anything is that no one wants to institutionalize anyone and deprive them of their liberty until the person presents a clear threat to himself and others.

To tie this to another thread:

We give psychiatrists great amounts of authority in determining what Medicare can pay for (sex changes), why don't we give them as much respect when it comes to deciding if one is playing with a full deck?

I admit it is a tricky road to go down but tying their mental health in with better background checks for guns could go a long way.