After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Balbus, Feb 15, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,946
    Should we ban SSRIs then?
    Benefits of Antidepressants Outweigh Risk of Suicidal Behavior in Adolescents
    Antidepressants: Risk vs Benefit in Depression | Psychiatric Times
    NIMH » Benefits of Antidepressants May Outweigh Risks for Kids
    http://woodymatters.com/06_updates/Benefitsrisk.pdf
    Weighing the Benefits & Risks of SSRI Antidepressants for Youth - AHRP
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2018
  2. machinist

    machinist Banned Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    5,149
    Likes Received:
    375
    Katie Worthman survivor of Hitler, condemns gun control. "Keep your guns, buy more guns." People with guns dont get jammed into cattle cars.

    This is what I keep saying. Modern society, civilized society is an illusion. Its hanging by a thread.

    This is the problem with liberals. They think theyre sooooo smart. If THEY were just holding the reigns and everybody got in line we'd have a utopia. Ha.

    Guess what. Trumps president. Hes going to be president 8 years. Get with the program. The next elections going to be a landslide. People have to HIDE that they are Trump supporters because liberals are so deranged and judgemental.
     
  3. machinist

    machinist Banned Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    5,149
    Likes Received:
    375
    The ban is crap because it is crafted for people that dont know anything about guns. It would be crap anyway though.

    Look at Canadas absolutely ridiculous gun laws. Cosmetic features can make one gun illegal while the exact same gun that just looks different is legal.

    This is a big provlem with so called "common sense" gun laws. If a person doesnt know anything about guns, if they dont have any sense to begin with, then there is no common sense.

    Its like "ooh thats a scary vlack gun with a synthetic stock, nobody needs that" and then there is the exact same gun with a walnut stock "oh yeah thats just a nice good ild hunting rifle, its fine if people have that." And thwn you look at the bullets. The scary black guns shoot a relatively small bullet (.223 or 5.56 NATO) people think oh yeah thats ok. Vut then a deer rifle like a .300 Win Mag shoots a big shell and people look at it and go, oh no nobody needs that lets ban it.

    Look up on youtube Steven Crowder common sense gun control debunked
     
    Toggle Almendro and farmerdon like this.
  4. Noserider

    Noserider Goofy-Footed Member

    Messages:
    9,578
    Likes Received:
    6,229
    I don't know but today feels kinda odd
    No smog, and mama cooked the breakfast with no hog...
    ...
    I didn't even have to use my AK
    Today was a good day...

    Seems even Ice Cube understood the correlation between assault weapons and hogs.
     
    soulcompromise and farmerdon like this.
  5. TheGhost

    TheGhost Auuhhhhmm ...

    Messages:
    4,487
    Likes Received:
    652
    LOLZ @ your crystal ball
     
    farmerdon likes this.
  6. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Not

    LOL oh yeah and the 14th century arquebusiers is exactly the same as an AR-15.

    But seriously – you are basically saying you want your society to be full of fear and paranoia and want to do nothing about the unnecessarily levels of deaths due to the ease of access to guns because….well what is your rational argument because I haven’t heard any yet.

    This is gibberish can you please clarify – so are you saying the rational argument is that you do have an increase in crime in the US, well yes the US has a vastly greater gun homicide rate than comparable nations without such ease of access to guns.

    So is the other thing your arguing is that the US has a ‘different demographic’ who is this demographic that is so different that is causing the crime?

    I mean I’ve had this from other gun lobbyists and with them it seemed to boil down to them thinking black people were more ‘violent dangerous and criminal’ - please don’t say you are going there.

    What are you going on about? What ‘groups’ which ‘others’ whose ‘common lifestyles’?

    Again I’d really like you to explain your thinking – who is this ‘other side’ – what I’ve been saying is that the gun lobby don’t seem to have any rational or reasonable argument against prudent gun control, you even say you want gun control so why do you think gun control will make the US a ‘shithole nation’?

    Sorry I can’t believe you were living in London if you think ‘hundreds’ were being killed and you thought it was a ‘war’ zone?

    I mean during the thirty odd year of the IRA campaign 50 people were killed in London (that is 0.7 a year).

    And anyway the IRA campaign was roughly from the early 1970 to the 1990’s so 15 years back from today when you say you were in London would be 2003 the Good Friday agreement that basically brought the Troubles to an end was signed in 1998.

    I was living in London on and off for some of the seventies and eighties (and settled full time here full time the nineties) - for me what I remember most about the seventies and eighties (when the IRA was most active) was the music scene, the gigs and the partying.
     
    Asmodean and Meliai like this.
  7. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Not

    I don’t know if this is endearingly or dangerously naïve – but certainly naive

    Ok I’ll first re-publish something I posted here back in 2007 and then address your specific reply.
     
  8. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Below was posted in Politics forum in 2007

    As some people might know I’ve been discussing guns recently, but it has been mainly from a crime perspective which has to a large extent ignored the government suppression justification for guns.

    Here are a few musings on the subject that I hope might stimulate some debate.

    **

    To start, a bit about a theory I have.

    It seems to me that many people who have guns come to see them as a way and means of dealing with or ignoring socio-political problems.

    Basically they do not see any urgency in dealing with the social or economic roots of crime since they are armed and believe that if a criminal comes for them they will have the means of dealing with them.

    And in the same way many believe ‘government’ suppression isn’t possible because they are armed that if the ‘government’ comes for them they have a gun to protect themselves and that enough people have guns that the ‘government’ could be overthrown anyway if it tried to suppress its citizens.

    **

    I have tried to point out that this doesn’t seem to fit with US history, and have given some examples but here I would like to go into a little more detail and show how the US political establishment colluded in the often systematic and overt repression of what it saw as a political rival to power.

    And to show that during this obvious case of state repression the American people did not rise up to champion freedom and democracy in fact most accepted it, many thought it a good thing and others were happy even eager to help in it.

    **

    Unions that tried to improve the conditions of some of the poorest in society often found themselves the object of state repression from the very beginning. Demands for such things as an eight hour day were ignored or suppressed with force by private police forces, state militias and even the National Guard, there was the suppression of public meetings or free speech, the imprisonment of people without charge, many people including women and children were beaten up and others killed.

    Also it was difficult for left wing groups to break into the political mainstream. The Democrats and Republicans have often joined together to exclude other political groups or party’s, since these are in the main right wing in outlook it has meant that the groups most often excluded have been left wing.

    (That is why many people in the US don’t vote for what they believe in or want but just to keep out something that they see as worse.)

    Against such opposition it is amazing that in 1912 the US Socialist Party had over a thousand elected officials in local government and that Eugene Debs got a million votes in that years presidential race (6 per cent of the vote, the envy of many socialist around the world at the time). It was able to get over thirty Majors into power as many legislators and had large numbers of loyal votes in many urban areas. It was a growing force.

    But the repression of trade union groups and left wing political ideas continued.

    For opposing WWI Debs was arrested and convicted to ten years in prison, from where he stood for President in 1920 receiving 913,664 votes (Nader got about half that in 2004 and Perot about double in 1992)

    Another socialist opponent of the war was also sentence to prison Victor Berger however he did get elected to Congress but was refused entry this caused a re-election that he again won, but he was still refused entry.

    In other areas like New York openly socialist representatives to the city and state - who had been democratically elected - were also barred from their posts.

    Around this time many states passed laws banning the display of red flags (a communist and socialist emblem) and the federal government set up the General Intelligence Division headed by none other than J. Edger Hoover to monitor (harass) left wing ‘radicals’.

    This harassment turned into repression during the late 1930’s with the establishment of the committee for ‘Un-American Activities’. This was set up to root out people whose view didn’t conform to what was thought of as American (basically thought policemen) and what the US political elite that had a grip on the system came to see those with left wing views as un-American.

    It began by targeting those that advocated the overthrow of any government in the United States. Now think about that many people here have advocated the overthrow of the US’s government. As I’ve pointed out above it is the justification for many to have guns so they can overthrow the government of the US if ‘needs’ must.

    It made it illegal to advocate or teach such ideas or help disseminate them in any way also any group that the government didn’t like could be targeted and forced to give the names and address of its members and the FBI illegally was authorised to tap phones and mail open peoples mail.

    This suppression was stepped up after the war, and to give an indication of the mentality of those in charge of the ‘un-American’ purge this is a quote from Albert Canwell who was chair of the California state committee –

    “If someone insists there is discrimination against Negroes in this country, or that there is inequality of wealth, there is every reason to believe that person is a communist”

    And when the House Committee for Un-American Activities dropped its investigation into the Klu Klux Klan in favour of going after the left wing the committee member John Rankin said that "After all, the KKK is an old American institution."

    **


    What followed seems very like a move by the American political elite to rid the US of what they saw as a political rival.

    A loyalty programme was brought in for all government workers and anyone with left leaning views or associations could lose their job, be sacked for their beliefs.

    People could appeal but the evidence against them did not have to be disclosed and accusers did not have to be identified.

    Think about that – believing in equal rights or a distributive tax system could get you thrown out of your job?

    Later it became even easier to sack someone for having ‘suspect’ (left wing) views, with the criteria for dismissal going from ‘reasonable grounds’ to only having to have ‘reasonable doubts’ about a persons supposed ‘loyalty’ and those that had been cleared under the lower criteria had their case re-opened.

    And in 1953 departments were given the power to dismiss individuals without having to conduct any hearing whatsoever on the merest suspicion.

    The Progressive Party of the time, which among other things advocated an end to segregation, full voting rights for blacks, and universal government health insurance, was branded a ‘communist’ party. Its leader Henry Wallace, along with others advocating such ‘radical’ ideas were then banned from speaking at a number of universities.

    The purge spread from the government into other areas most famously the entertainment industry, but also academia were airing ‘communist’ ideas (that in practice meant many left wing ideas) could bring about dismissal and the law where the American Bar Association also brought in a loyalty oath, and lawyers that defended those accused of having un-American ideas could find themselves been accused of the same thing and put under investigation.

    At the same time there was a constant stream of anti-communist propaganda but this very often made no distinction between what was ‘evil communist’ and the vast majority of left wing thought. And many Americans even today seem to make little distinction between hard line Stalinism and the wishy washy leftism of say New Labour - it happens frequently on these forums with ‘communist’ been thrown out as an insult and being directed at those with even the most moderate of lift wing views. And on the many right wing websites there are shrill cries whenever anyone says anything that isn’t firmly right of centre, and the kind of attack and slander once directed at commies has now expanded to include ‘liberals’.

    **

    Many pro-gunners seem to feel they are the final arbiters, the ones that would defend American liberty, uphold the US constitution.

    So what were they doing when their fellow citizens rights were been curtailed in such open fashion and the Constitution trashed?
    As establishments know if they want to go after a people, religion or political group they first have to demonize it and or make it seem threatening.


    This can be done for many reasons to scapegoat, blaming a particular group or race for the woes of the majority as happened with the Jews and Bolsheviks in 1930’s Germany, or it can be directed at whose that are seen as political rivals.

    The Nazi propaganda films showing Jews as rats seem crude today but the principles are the same as the anti-communist films made in the US.

    (And with every threat or policy the villains change, Columbian drug dealers to accompany the ‘war on drugs’ and Arab terrorists to accompany a pro-Israeli foreign policy).
    The thing was that many people at that time (as now) who were pro-gun were also right leaning politically and were therefore not seen as a threat by the political establishment but rather as an ally.

    The thing is are they still?


    If they are I think the establishment will continue to stand by them.

    But if they stop being seen as allies or the establishment believes it has other means of control they will turn on the gun owners. I think many pro-gunners realize this and feel the threat.

    Now many are going to cry ‘YES that’s why we need guns’ but what I’m trying to point out is that those guns are unlikely to save them.
    Because once the government - which the establishment is happy with - is threatened the thing threatening it is put under pressure. Look at what happened to the anti-government citizen militias after the Oklahoma bombing opened up an opportunity to move against them (and how they briefly became the villains in a number of films).

    The problem is that I think many pro-gunners believe the guns will protect them and so do very little (if anything) to actually counter the establishment.

    That could be done politically but only if they were willing to ditch the views that help the establishment to stay in power and realign the political system so that it is not a threat to its people.
     
    MeAgain, Okiefreak and soulcompromise like this.
  9. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Not

    Ok the first thing I noticed here is that this doesn’t seem much about protecting America from ‘tyranny’ or ‘bad’ government

    It is mostly me, me, me

    I mean you already believe such things have already been done to other people, so why haven’t you already ‘taken up arms’?

    And for generations of Black Americans these ‘attacks’ you describe were the norm and form what I’ve heard and read it still goes on and Black people have learnt from experience that pulling a gun on the police in such circumstances is not a good idea.

    When do you know it’s corrupt? I mean the examples you give are based on the ‘attacks’ on you being unlawful, that they were not sanctioned by a court.

    BUT if the due authority issued a warrant or court order you’d comply. If they got a warrant you comply. If a court says they have proof you have done something wrong and says you have to go to court, you comply.

    So basically you stand against ‘bad’ government is to hope government doesn’t go ‘bad’

    In other words by the time you would use your guns to stop things going bad they could have already gone bad - making your guns useless to stop it.

    I’ve given a number of examples but I’ll choose one, during the McCarty and Non-Americans committee witch hunts were going on do you think that if the accused had pulled out guns and fought back, do you think the mainly right wing gun owners would have ‘taken up arms’ to defend the supposed ‘lefties’?

    What was happening was basically a purge, the ‘elimination’ of what the establishment saw as its ‘foes’ ok there were not firing squads and gulags, but it was a purge none the less and the right cheered it on.

    During Trumps first travel ban a survey found that many right wing Americans (and most Trump supporters) thought the President should have the ability to overrule the courts. And it’s being pointed out that Trump seems to be appointing judges by their loyalty to him rather than on their merits for the job.

    I’ve also talked with many right wing Americans that don’t seem that committed to democracy we had someone here present a common argument amongst some right wingers that it is ‘two wolves and a lamb deciding what’s for dinner’ that some other form of government that didn’t involve democracy would be preferable (usually for those on the right some kind of plutocracy).

    I’ve talked to many right wingers that think the Black Lives Matter movement is a terrorist organisation and would want the members of it treated like terrorists – so let’s say for an example there is a propaganda campaign (like that used against lefties) that painted BLM as terrorists and you had President and law makers go along with that and bought a law you could call it the Malicious Practices Act and you had judges that agreed. The act could be used to arrest those seen as possible domestic terrorists and you could ask the public to tell the police if they thought anyone was subversive or acting 'un-American'

    And all the things you say would cause you to ‘take up arms’ became legal to do against those classed as 'un-American', it would be legal but would it be right?

    *

    The Malicious Practices Act was brought into law in Germany 1933 it gave the authorities the powers to arrest those people considered a danger to the state - it was followed by the mass arrests of socialists and communist, who Nazis propaganda had been claiming were enemies of the people so that many Germans thought their arrest a good thing.

    "Around 10,000 Communists and Socialists were arrested in March and April. By June, the numbers in ‘protective custody’.... A good number of those arrested were the victims of denunciations by neighbours or workmates. So great was the wave of denunciations following the Malicious Practices Act of 21 March 1933 that even the police criticised it."

    The lefties were sent off to concentration camps for 're-education the law i believe was also the one used to 'arrest' the Jews.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2018
    Okiefreak and MeAgain like this.
  10. mcme

    mcme lurker

    Messages:
    1,316
    Likes Received:
    815
    Please stop trying to make owning firearms all about the need to protect yourself or fear and paranoia. For me and others they're just another tool for sport and recreation, just like my snowboard, recurve bow, boat and many other things I own. It's hardly odd that the most popular rifle in the country for recreational and competition shooting is also used in some horrific events. It doesn't automatically make it the rifle's fault and require the rifle to be banned to stop the horrific events. They'll happen anyway with all the other things used besides AR15's just as they occurred before it became such a popular firearm, and while it's been a popular firearm.
     
    machinist and 6-eyed shaman like this.
  11. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,918
    Likes Received:
    15,117
    This is a thread about school shootings. Are you saying all school shootings are caused bu psychiatric drugs?

    If we want to get into the science behind those drugs I think we need a separate thread. Which I will gladly join.
     
  12. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,918
    Likes Received:
    15,117
    Okay, so let's look at this.
    But before we do I really forget what point you're trying to make. We all know drugs have side effects.

    Prozac (fluoxetine) and similar drugs have been used by millions of people. Negative side effects about 2%. These side effects include withdraw, weight gain, building tolerance to the drug, anxiety, sweating, abnormal dreams, diarrhea, loss of muscle strength, rash, flu like symptoms, tremors, insomnia, inflammation of the mucus membrane, digestive problems, dry mouth, nausea, widening of the blood vessels, and sexual dysfunction.

    Now let's compare that to the side effects of aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid).
    Increase in stomach acid, heartburn, vomiting, irritation of the stomach and intestinal linings, stomach cramps, rupture of the stomach or intestinal walls, anemia, random bleeding, bleeding of the stomach or intestines, anal bleeding, spams of the bronchial muscle, lose of blood clotting ability, decrease in blood platelets, decrease in white blood cells, drowsiness, giant hives, hemolytic anemia, hemorrhage within the skull, skin inflammation, interstitial nephritis, itching, purple or brown splotches, life threatening allergic reactions, ringing in the ears, wheezing, skin blisters, stomach or intestinal ulcers, trouble breathing, stroke, bloody urine, chest pain, confusion, constipation, fainting, rapid breathing, irregular heartbeat, nervousness, feelings of doom, fever, swelling of the fingers, face, or lower legs, panic, poisoning, and seizures. I'll stop there I'm getting tired of listing them.
    Chance just for increased bleeding from daily preventive aspirin use: under 60 years of age 8 of every 1,000 men; 4 of every 1,000 women. 69 to 70, 24 of every 1,000 men; 12 of every 1,000 women. 70 to 79, 36 of every 1,000 men; 18 of every 1,000 women.

    Without going any further, as I said all drugs have side effects, the question is does the benefit outway the negative side effects.
    All you've done is list side effects.
    As we can see even aspirin can casue panic.
     
  13. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,918
    Likes Received:
    15,117
    I wish.
     
  14. Asmodean

    Asmodean Slo motion rider

    Messages:
    50,551
    Likes Received:
    10,141
    Me too. There's a big change it would make the arguments of the anti gun control folks look more sensible. I really crave more sensible arguments from my convo partners with opposite stances :)
     
  15. soulcompromise

    soulcompromise Member Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    22,696
    Likes Received:
    11,818
    I don't think so. It outlines the what is considered an "assault weapon" which is what many here have complained about that strategy lacking. Now that they've said what and why, the ban is suddenly crap? So by your logic, since there are other weapons that do the same thing, we should broaden the list? I doubt that's what you're meaning to do.

    But it also seems you would have us do nothing. What are you suggesting that limits access to prevent this in the future? I'm sure background checks are nice, but that hasn't exactly worked very well. Then again, the assault weapons ban we had in the nineties wasn't particularly effective, and as many have pointed out, handguns seem to be the prevalent source of problem. To that I counter that we cannot idly sit and do nothing to further restrict weaponry. It's got to stop.

    Someone posted a video of a weapon and asked if it was an assault weapon or not. To that person I say "check the list". Even though it isn't in effect yet, and possibly never will be, I feel like the overall attitude, with some noted exceptions, has been cavalier, nonchalant, or basically uncaring with regard to the fate of students and other victims of mass shootings.

    Machinist, can you put down your toys for a moment to tell us what you think should be done? I don't want to set you off, but I'm tired of the rhetoric.
     
  16. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,918
    Likes Received:
    15,117
    The Castle Doctrine is not a law it's a principle.

    You can't invoke the "castle the doctrine" to just shoot a trespasser in your home. It only applies in cases
    The doctrine is different in different places. Here's a general summery:
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2018
  17. NotMyRealName

    NotMyRealName Members

    Messages:
    1,870
    Likes Received:
    326
    Blah Blah Blah. If you bothered to read what I said, I said I lived in London about a decade BEFORE THE TIME discussed in the post. Not before today.

    SMH...Why do I even bother trying.......

    You ask me a question. Then you change the question. Then accuse me of dodging it. Then accuse me of lying when I answer it. So why the eff do I need to even bother?

    Forget it. You're always gonna be right and the rest will always be wrong. Welcome to how we are becoming a shithole country.

    Keep doing what you're doing.......its been working out GREAT!!!

     
  18. 6-eyed shaman

    6-eyed shaman Sock-eye salmon

    Messages:
    10,378
    Likes Received:
    5,158
    1. Yes
    2. Yes
    3. Yes

    It makes it even worse how government subsidizing these drugs, which is increasing the number of people taking them who don't truly need them. And I'm not just talking about stimulants and ADHD medications only, I'm also talking about anti-depressants which seems to be a common trait in school murders.

    Over two thirds of people on antidepressants 'may NOT have depression' | Daily Mail Online


    I don't know your friends, but I have to wonder about how and why they were diagnosed. Little boys are generally more rowdy and rambunctious than little girls, it is true. One book that red-pilled me away from my dependency on pharmaceuticals was "No More ADHD" by Mary Ann Block. She is a doctor who takes a more holistic approach to examining a patient's attention span. Not everyone does well in a fluorescent lit classroom, sitting still in uncomfortable chairs and desks trying to listen to a boring lecturer with a monotone voice, who is not passionate about engaging the class and watching students learn. You've gone to school; I'm sure you've had your fair share of good and bad teachers to know what I'm talking about. Girls tend to do better in these types of learning environments with auditory/visual learning methods than boys; who generally do better at hands-on approaches to education.

    Perhaps your ADHD friends can try improving their dietary, exercise, and studying habits.
    It worked for me.
    If they take pills daily, then they're basically dependent on the substance in order to get by in day-to-day life. So if they forget to take their medication one day, then of course their body is gonna go crazy and react.

    When I adopted the mindset of "ADHD doesn't exist" it really was the first step in learning how to get by without drugs. To make it easier on my body, I gradually took less and less of my daily meds. I felt like a zombie during that comedown period. Once that was over, I was liberated from all the side affects that I suffered from for so many years. This time I just told myself that I don't need this shit anymore. Getting off of these behavior control substances was one of the best feelings ever. I figuratively wanted to wring my psychiatrists' neck for telling me I couldn't survive without them.

    So I'm passionate about spreading the word to other guys who were brought up like me on the pills.


    Ok so maybe Cultural Marxism wasn't the best phrase for it. Let me rephrase that to Social Justice Barbarian, which basically includes the radical feminism you talk about.

    It's interesting you bring up Hoff Sommers' book the War on Boys. I just opened that book and I'm on the first chapter. .
     
  19. NotMyRealName

    NotMyRealName Members

    Messages:
    1,870
    Likes Received:
    326
    Again you might wanna brush up a little more on this. In short if someone is trespassing upon my property, as defined by the jurisdisction I am in, in an illegal fashion, I may determine that deadly force may need to be used. Yes there are conditions that need to be met for this, but in this case you started, IF a cop is in fact trespassing, he by nature of already having displayed his capability to use deadly force on me, I have no legal obligation to surrender or retreat, I can in fact use deadly force to protect myself. That supersedes trespassing statutes of your whatever you said fines of blah blah blah. You can disagree all you like. In the end the only one that gives a fuck will be me if and when this happens. I'm not some gun happy lets shoot everything I see person, much to your disappointment, I'm sure. But judging from this thread, I'd bet I know better than you do, the consequences, legal and otherwise, of what happens when a bullet leaves the barrel of my gun.

    If some kids walks across my yard to cut a shortcut, no I have no right to shoot him, but I do have a right to charge him with trespassing if I so desire. If I were an asshole I might. It would be perfectly legal to. If I have a cop or anyone else determined to enter my property with no cause, its a different set of rules. They are the assholes and I will act upon that to the extent the law provides for me.

    Now you can try and say dead body in plain view or probable cause all you like to muddy this up all you like. I know the difference between a cop doing his job, and one that isn't. Perhaps you don't. I have no problem consenting, and am in fact legally obligated, to allowing a police officer upon my property to ask questions about a dead body etc. If he follows legal procedures for asking me for that consent, I will give that consent. That isn't trespassing.......So come up with all your effed up reasons why I'm a douche bag I don't care. The fact is there are crooked cops, crooked governments and crooked dudes that need to be shot if they try and eff with others lives. Some of the states that have incorporated the Castle Doctrine are also allowing that doctrine to be extended into the vehicles being legally owned and operated by citizens. It is considered an extension of or in some cases an actual residence and therefore afforded that same rights under the CD. Another good thing.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2018
    farmerdon likes this.
  20. 6-eyed shaman

    6-eyed shaman Sock-eye salmon

    Messages:
    10,378
    Likes Received:
    5,158
    Statistically speaking, 65-70% of the people you know who are on psychotropes prescribed by their doctors, don't need to be on them at all.
     
  21. NotMyRealName

    NotMyRealName Members

    Messages:
    1,870
    Likes Received:
    326
    It has been discussed in this thread about using the Australian model for how they outlawed and made guns illegal. So to be fair to that argument we need to consider this.



    But mass shooting problems were solved.
     
    farmerdon likes this.
  22. 6-eyed shaman

    6-eyed shaman Sock-eye salmon

    Messages:
    10,378
    Likes Received:
    5,158
    I believe the term for this is "copycat crime." When people hear about a person's actions in the media, they aspire to be just like that person regardless how good or evil it is.

    After the Hunger Games movies came out, many people took up archery. And when school shooters become overnight celebrities, the media subconsciously inspires other mentally ill people to become just like them.

    This most recent shooter has a record of saying he wanted to be the "next" school shooter. There's no doubt in my mind he was inspired by past events.

    I fully agree it would be nice to see if we could reduce mass shootings if the media stopped giving it such frenetic coverage. The problem is, people want to politicize and exploit such events to push their agendas. :(
     
    farmerdon and mcme like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice