T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
We used to have asylums for that.
Cops were sent to Maine gunman’s home weeks before massacres amid concern he ‘is
- Thread starter Guno צְבִי
- Start date
We used to have asylums for that.
Imprisoning people seems more extreme than just taking away their guns. What next, are we going to imprison people too unhealthy to drive, rather than just taking away their drivers license?
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Putting people in supervised care and giving them something useful to do while there is a far better solution than relying on them to do the right thing while still free in society. Taking their guns is no guarantee that they won't get more. If they have serious mental health issues, supervised care with a useful work program is a better solution. Then they can't access a firearm, have something to do to occupy them, and are getting treatment for their issues.
So if someone goes blind, you want to arrest them, instead of just taking away their drivers license?
There are no guarantees in life. We could arrest anyone who might commit a crime in the future... But that would be everyone.
What we could do is make the unlicensed transfer of a gun illegal. If you sell a gun to a criminal who kills people, you go to prison. That would make us all more safe. And when was there a right to sell a gun to someone who cannot legally own a gun?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
taking away someones guns is just another form of civil asset forfeiture. Do you approve of current asset forfeiture laws/processes, where the government can just take your property forcing you to sue the government to get it back, usually costing more than the property is worth?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
It's not the founders agreeing with me, it's me agreeing with the founders. as for execution, do you think that after the events of the revolutionary war, they would have apathetically accepted people who still tried to advocate for the monarchs policies and laws regarding their perceived rights/freedoms?
I heard of the Founding Fathers executing people for having an unauthorized militia, is that what you mean?
No, it is a form of asset seizure. The guns can be returned, so they are not forfeited. Asset seizure needs a lot less evidence. Even civil asset forfeiture in many cases only requires a preponderance of the evidence(51% certainty). Asset seizure can be less than that.
Many asset forfeiture laws have gone too far, but I agree there should be asset forfeiture laws. As did the Founding Fathers. The question is where the line should be. This idea that having a gun is some sort of absolute right is insane.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
no, you didn't
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
You must be retarded yourself. Your complex question aside, no, I wouldn't. A blind person can function in society. On the other hand, someone who is mentally ill, has demonstrated a repeated propensity towards violence, and can be medicated with supervision should be supervised. Right now, the lack of asylums means such a person ends up committing a violent crime and going to prison where they get medicated and supervised. It'd be better as a society if such people were committed to a nursing home environment with employment opportunities and kept under some supervision than letting them run free until they commit a crime and end up in prison.
On the other hand, demonstrated past behavior is an indicator of probable future behavior. When you have someone who is mentally ill and diagnosed so, it makes sense we treat them medically rather than criminally. You want to wait until they're a criminal, and that's the thinking that got 18 people killed in Maine.
That's a crime as it is. More laws for gun control do nothing. You want to focus on the tool. I want to focus on the fool (person). People commit crimes and have mental illness. A gun is just an inanimate object and a tool, nothing more.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
A blind person can still function in society, but obviously should not be allowed to drive. Many mentally ill people also function in our society, but should not be allowed to have guns. If a blind person keeps trying to drive, maybe we should put them in prison. If a mentally ill person shows a clear problem, maybe they should be locked up.
There is a gradient. Someone who is somewhat suicidal, on their meds, but the meds are going to take a few weeks to take effect, should not have a gun. Taking them away from their support network, and locking them up, also is often a bad idea.
In the Maine case, he murdered no one before he murdered 18 people.
Cocaine is also an inanimate object.
evince
Truthmatters
And your proof is what lie bag?
Are there any circumstances that the government or any other organization have the right to take assets away from people? If someone steals something of yours, should the government have the right to take it back for you? If someone parks their car on your property against your wishes, should you have the right to call a tow company to get it towed away? If someone does not pay a loan guaranteed by an asset, should the asset be allowed to be taken back? If someone is shooting people with a gun, do the police have the right (and even the duty) to take that gun away from him?
The question is not whether there should be asset seizure, or not, it is what circumstances there should be asset seizures. You demand that asset seizure should be the absolute last step, well after incarceration. Well wouldn't that mean the incarcerated would have their guns seized? Or do you want people locked up with guns?
There should be a reasonable gradient, where the guns are taken away, before incarceration.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
the government does not have rights, they have powers.
these are ALL false equivalencies and is in NO WAY related to civil asset forfeiture
Matt Dillon
Semolina comes from wheat
That smacks of government failure to keep crazy people out of society.
Matt Dillon
Semolina comes from wheat
evince
Truthmatters
You are TruthMatters! Yikes!
desh is TruthMatters.
No shit Sherlock
I told everyone here that for over a decade shit cake