|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 16, 2012, 02:37 PM | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,315
|
Makes me think of a certain Ohio LEO who get his gun back even though he has bouts of temporary insanity. Talk about selective enforcement!
|
November 16, 2012, 03:09 PM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
There is no reliable mass screening test that can predict violent behavior. There is no way to administer a reliable instrument to every gun owner and purchaser.
Individual evaluations have been found to be almost useless as a mass preventive measure. Only if a person is acting irrationally or making threats can we make some judgements. Any system we could think of would have a tremendous false positive rate. Folks would be branded as a risk and that quickly would be used to deny them of rights and employment. Oh, John can't buy a gun - well, should he be school teacher? Been studied quite intensively.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
November 16, 2012, 04:00 PM | #53 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 779
|
Do you have any direct links to those studies? I agree with your central premise but I'd like to see some relevant data
__________________
I told the new me, "Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'" But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back." Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor |
November 16, 2012, 04:18 PM | #54 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
The efficacy of violence prediction: a meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools.
M Yang, Wong, J Coid - Psychological bulletin, 2010 - psycnet.apa.org Their conclusion: Quote:
JW Coid, M Yang, S Ullrich, T Zhang… - The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology 2011 - Taylor & Francis You can find more through Google Scholar. But you can see that they think using the standard instruments would not be useful for a legal decision such as denying some of their rights. The only thing that has some use was a history of past violence.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
November 17, 2012, 03:09 PM | #55 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
One of the basics problems, or flaws, if you will, with our mindset and the way our society carries it out is the concept that we ought to be able to prevent violence.
And that is simply not possible until/unless we transform mankind into something we currently are not, (and historically have never been). Boil it down, what is best, to restrict/punish people for what they might do? Or accept the cost of what they do, and punish them for actually doing it? Sure, it's a greyscale, with few absolute black and whites, but in general, which do you think better? For myself, I think it better to have freedom, and pay the cost. Others think it best to restrict us all (and you can consider those restrictions "chains"), because of what a few people might do. My issue with this idea is that despite all the restrictions, we get the violence anyway. WE are paying an ever increasing cost in our personal liberty (including what you can own, and what you can do with what you own) for the false promise of security. Bad men and nutcases still do as they please, no matter what restrictions are placed on us, it does not stop them. It seems like they are making it against the law to eat pasta, so my house won't burn down. And then some nutjob (possibly in a govt uniform) comes along and burns my house down. And then they tell me it happened because I still have spagetti sauce in my cupboard....or my neighbor still does...or the guy down the block grew tomatoes...etc... Prior restraint is something adults do to protect children, until the children proove they are capable of protecting themselves. It is not something that should be applied to adults, and particularly not to free citizens. Because if it is, then we aren't.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
November 17, 2012, 05:04 PM | #56 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2007
Posts: 1,100
|
Random violence cannot be effectivey predicted, and never will. There will never be a computer program that will be able to correctly calculate the inestimable variables inherent in such circumstances. The best we can hope for is to limit the effect of such circumstances. Rabid dog, rapid response, rabid dog down.
|
November 17, 2012, 05:28 PM | #57 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2009
Posts: 1,624
|
The only gun law I support is the one that makes it a crime to shoot innocent people.
|
November 18, 2012, 01:02 AM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
|
The person in the article was blowing smoke out a certain part of his anatomy.
__________________
Have a nice day at the range NRA Life Member |
November 18, 2012, 11:52 AM | #59 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 7, 2007
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Posts: 941
|
Here is the only restriction I would go for at this time. No more than 1 new gun law could be introduced in a legislative session (state and federal, two different sessions). The antis would be forced to combine all their idiotic ideas into one bill. What politician would vote for such an over reaching, career ending bill? Yes there are some but not many.
|
November 18, 2012, 02:54 PM | #60 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 8, 2004
Posts: 563
|
How about this 'restriction'?
Make it a federal felony for any gov't representative or worker to even discuss/think/attempt to restrict/reduce the right of a lawful US citizen to own or carry any firearm they wish.
__________________
"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." Texas State Rep. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp |
November 18, 2012, 08:02 PM | #61 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
November 19, 2012, 10:42 AM | #62 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,563
|
That's not such a far fetched idea...
http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...highlight=rico While it isn't exactly the same thing as k_dawg posted - it's in the same vein. Edit - - Ok - I have to apologies a little. I thought it would be a lot easier to track down where the idea of using RICO to go after congress members that co-sponsor anti 2nd amendment rights than it turned out to be. I tried to search for RICO - but - I got a zillion and three hits - mostly Puerto Rico... I could even be wrong on the site here also...it could very well have come up on the High Road... Anyhow - yes - at one time there was some discussion either here, THR or possibly even Bladeforums.com about using RICO. For newer members here.. TFL, THR and Bladeforums.com all operated very close together at one time or another. Many of the staff and the "regulars" posted or moderated or pitched in at all three. Last edited by Hal; November 19, 2012 at 11:04 AM. |
November 19, 2012, 09:02 PM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Ridiculous, if your not in jail and not under arrest I believe the founding fathers would have found you have no restrictions on owning firearms..
Every restriction directly impacts freedom...
__________________
Molon Labe |
November 19, 2012, 10:26 PM | #64 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
Quote:
Not sure just when it began, but by 1968 it became Federal law. Felon, no guns, ever,the rest of your life, period, unless a court said otherwise.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
November 19, 2012, 11:26 PM | #65 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
There's some suggestion that the term "outlaw" in early American practice meant the same thing. The idea was total ostracism without getting our hands bloody. I'd really like to think we have a more modern view of crime and punishment as a society, but here we are.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
November 21, 2012, 07:24 PM | #66 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 11, 2012
Location: Louisville, Ky.
Posts: 156
|
As I said in another forum, the antis will never stop. They will just keep coming after our firearms. We must constantly fight for our rights.
It is not about safety or keeping guns out of the hands of the mental ill. It is about disarming the general population. Sen. Feinstein said it herself, that if she could get a majority vote in the U.S. Senate she would outlaw guns in the hand of ordinary citzens. |
November 22, 2012, 07:37 PM | #67 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 779
|
Quote:
__________________
I told the new me, "Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'" But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back." Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|