Mental Illness is not to blame for gun violence

[Into the Night]

Are we having difficulties processing?

No. I have a machine with 24 cores in it. My processing speed is quite fast. I can run a -j48 on this machine with no problem.

Ah, the NRA is the driving force behind blanket opposition to any kind of gun legislation to include extending background checks,

And they are right to do so.

and they are also a leading proponent of the argument that mental health is the leading cause of gun violence.

And they are making up random numbers to make this claim. 'Mental health' is not defined. Random numbers are not data. Using them as data is a fallacy, known as an Argument from randU fallacy. This fallacy is common among government, Democrats, and the fundamentally religious.

The oppose vehemently the very instrument that would aid considerably preventing weapons from falling into the hands of one mental ill.

Define 'mentally ill'.

Last week in Georgia illustrated the hypocrisy

What hypocrisy? Do you think the 'mentally ill' have no right to defend themselves?

Now let's take the spa shootings.

This is an individual that is a murderer. Murder is already illegal in Georgia and in every other State. If a good guy with a gun is around, he has every right to shoot this individual to protect the innocent. Protecting the community is an interest worth defending. The fact that he was out shooting people justifies any act to kill him justifiable homicide.
The cops can't be everywhere at once. This event is actually a REASON for people to carry a gun.

Is it justifiable to pass any law for what a person MIGHT do? If you want to go down THAT road, you MIGHT stab someone. Should you outlaw all knives and tools? You MIGHT offend someone. Should you outlaw the internet? You MIGHT hit and kill a bicyclist with a car. Should you outlaw cars?

You can punish people for what they HAVE done, but not for what they MIGHT do. Any attempt to do so is oppression. I have the right to defend myself and my interests against such oppression, using any and all means.

 

[LV426]

They infringe on an individual's right inherent right to defend himself

Who said that was an inherent right?

giving a government the ability to give permission to exercise that right.

Sure, if you're mentally unwell, as you appear to be, I would want the government to prevent you from getting a gun.

 

[archives]

The right does not come from a piece of paper.

You have the inherent right to defend yourself and your interests, simply because you are living breathing thing. Every animal has that right to defend itself and it's interests with every means it chooses.

The 2nd amendment:


This amendment discusses two rights, both inherent, and both related.

The right of a State to defend itself, simply because it is a State. States organize militias (armies) for this purpose. These troops are led by the governor of that State and are formed from the people of that State.
The federal government also has this right. It has formed a national militia as a result (the National Guard).

The right of an individual to defend themselves and their interests. They have that inherent right as a law of nature, not because of the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is a directive to the federal government and to the States: HANDS OFF

This amendment specifically prohibits the federal government (and the States as well) from infringing on any of these rights of self defense. The States agreed to this when they joined the Union.

In any nation, no matter how oppressive, the right to self defense is still there. It cannot be taken away by any government. It is indeed justifiable to defend yourself and your interests from such oppression, and to use every means to do so.

Right, so I guess then others have this “inherent right” “from the law of nature” not to be shot by a stranger in a grocery store, church, club, school, bowling alley, movie theater, or any public gathering, equally absurd argument as the one you are attempting to present

And the Amendment says nothing regarding the regulation of these rights, as even Scalia warned in the Heller Decision, which you are attempting to pass here, very badly I might add, no right is absolute

Reason, not desire, defines rights

 

[Nordberg]

Yesterday was a perfect example for all. The shooter is mentally ill. His brother understood his problems. I am sure his brother would not want him to have an AR. He said his brother was paranoid and thought people were following him.

 

[archives]

No. I have a machine with 24 cores in it. My processing speed is quite fast. I can run a -j48 on this machine with no problem.

And they are right to do so.

And they are making up random numbers to make this claim. 'Mental health' is not defined. Random numbers are not data. Using them as data is a fallacy, known as an Argument from randU fallacy. This fallacy is common among government, Democrats, and the fundamentally religious.

Define 'mentally ill'.

What hypocrisy? Do you think the 'mentally ill' have no right to defend themselves?

Now let's take the spa shootings.

This is an individual that is a murderer. Murder is already illegal in Georgia and in every other State. If a good guy with a gun is around, he has every right to shoot this individual to protect the innocent. Protecting the community is an interest worth defending. The fact that he was out shooting people justifies any act to kill him justifiable homicide.
The cops can't be everywhere at once. This event is actually a REASON for people to carry a gun.

Is it justifiable to pass any law for what a person MIGHT do? If you want to go down THAT road, you MIGHT stab someone. Should you outlaw all knives and tools? You MIGHT offend someone. Should you outlaw the internet? You MIGHT hit and kill a bicyclist with a car. Should you outlaw cars?

You punish people for what they HAVE done, but not for what they MIGHT do.

You can always tell when “nightingale” is done when he has to break everything down into phrases

Not your machine, you, processing information

Never said they didn’t, just pointing out their hypocrisy in doing so

Irrelevant, and citing unrelated fallacies doesn’t make it any more relevant

Ask NRA or yourself, you are the ones saying mental health is a leading cause of gun violence

That the same party that imports mental health as a cause of gun violence also opposes any form of background checks

Now, do you want to try breaking it down by adjectives and adverbs, or is it time to copy and paste off of your glossary of Google fallacies

 

[Into the Night]

Right, so I guess then others have this “inherent right” “from the law of nature” not to be shot by a stranger in a grocery store, church, club, school, bowling alley, movie theater, or any public gathering, equally absurd argument as the one you are attempting to present

You are only justifying the need for people to carry guns. If a bad guy with a gun starts shooting people in a grocery store, a good guy with a gun can stop him and save a lot of lives.

And the Amendment says nothing regarding the regulation of these rights, as even Scalia warned in the Heller Decision, which you are attempting to pass here, very badly I might add, no right is absolute

The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution of the United States no any State constitution, nor does have the ability to destroy an inherent right.

Reason, not desire, defines rights

You are not using reason. You are mongering fear due to your hoplophobia.

 

[Into the Night]

Yesterday was a perfect example for all. The shooter is mentally ill. His brother understood his problems. I am sure his brother would not want him to have an AR. He said his brother was paranoid and thought people were following him.

Nope. Just another bad guy with a gun that could've been stopped by a good guy with a gun. Yet another reason to carry a gun.

 

[Iolo/Penderyn]

There is indeed a process to amend the constitution which has been deployed many times.
That's why we have all those numbered amendments.

Said process is useless, however, when the nation is as polarized as it is now.
It requires consensus that's laughable to even contemplate in today's times.
No American alive today will ever see another constitutional amendment.

We have a better chance to partition the republic into smaller, more internally compatible nations than to change the nation as it exists today.

Pretty much the same here. Don't you think the nuttiness may just pass, when Trump goes to jail and so on?

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Don't you think the nuttiness may just pass, when Trump goes to jail and so on?

We can only hope.

I live with a Welsh Terrorist, by the way. She's right there on my avatar.
The breeder told me that she was a Welsh "Terrier," but when she still had her milk teeth, I had to count my fingers every day.

 

[Truth Detector]

Therefore the right laws would have stopped them.

What are those "right laws"? Let's have the debate.

 

[Truth Detector]

Because it did just that in Japan.

So you're claiming there are no more murders or crime in Japan?

It takes a special; kind of stupid to believe that criminals will obey laws.

 

[Walt]

What are those "right laws"? Let's have the debate.

Let's try something simple. If it is uncertain whether the buyer has a criminal record or not, no selling the gun. Also, lets allow guns to be tracked by computer. Or how about some level of training when buying a gun. We could ban the private sales loophole that allows millions of guns to be sold without any background check.

 

[Walt]

So you're claiming there are no more murders or crime in Japan?

So you are arguing that if an action does not get rid of 100% of crime, it is worthless?

Japan's extreme gun control laws got rid of 99.9% of a gun crime. An entire year has gone by without any gun deaths in Japan. I am not saying that Japan's gun laws are for us, but I am saying that gun restrictions do restrict guns.

 

[Bulletbob]

seem lv again dont know what hes talking about , the recent shooter had mental issues according to his family, and lets be honest most of the people who have shot up schools movie shows etc were not wrapped to tight and had clear signs of mental illness. I guess lv has some mental illness or come one close to him and is fighting the wind for his own reasons instead of accepting the truth

 

[Truth Detector]

You're very reckless and irresponsible, so there's no reason to believe that you take securing your guns seriously.

There you go with the moronic lies again. I really do believe that your mental illness is not an act.

 

[Truth Detector]

Then why do you want to give PEOPLE access to guns?

Why do you want to disarm them?

 

[Truth Detector]

Let's try something simple. If it is uncertain whether the buyer has a criminal record or not, no selling the gun.

How is it uncertain? If you have a felony on your record, you can't buy a gun. The same goes for mental illness.

Also, lets allow guns to be tracked by computer.

Guns are already registered into a computer database. How does that stop them from being used in a crime?

Or how about some level of training when buying a gun.

Does training prevent car accidents? How does training prevent someone from using their weapon illegally?

We could ban the private sales loophole that allows millions of guns to be sold without any background check.

How is that a "loophole?" If I own something, you're saying I can't sell it without conducting a background check? How do private citizens have access to criminal records and weapons databases?

Again, how does a law prevent criminals from breaking them? All you want to do is make criminals of law abiding citizens in the brain dead belief this would stop gun crimes without a shred of credible evidence to support such lunacy.

 

[Walt]

]Guns are already registered into a computer database.

We already covered that. You would assume it was legal for the federal government to put gun records into computers... But it is not. They are forced to live in the 1800's.

 

[Truth Detector]

So you are arguing that if an action does not get rid of 100% of crime, it is worthless?

No dimwitted wonder dunce; I am asking you how LAWS stop CRIMINALS from breaking them?

Japan's extreme gun control laws got rid of 99.9% of a gun crime.

Link to this claim?

Japan does not have a Constitution ensuring their citizens of the right to "carry" arms. As a result, the citizens of Japan are at the mercy of their Government and we know how that turned out in WWII don't we?

 

[Walt]

If I own something, you're saying I can't sell it without conducting a background check? How do private citizens have access to criminal records and weapons databases?

You can't sell a car without a title transfer, so why are you able to sell a gun? In states that have closed the loophole, you simple go to a gun store, and fill out the paperwork you would normally do. For a small fee, the sale goes through normally.

Or in states you support, any criminal can buy a gun in a parking lot of a gun store using the private sale loophole.