In this thread, Garamet tells Wordforge what should be done about guns

And you're addressing me instead of referring to me. That's progress. Now, if you'd like to address the rest of that post to me, we can proceed. I'll be here for the next half hour or so.


ETA 30 minutes later: Oh, well.

 

I don't play your game Margaret. I've provided a detailed response to the post you wrote in reply to LizK. If you care to continue the discussion, be my guest. If not, fine. I'm more than happy to shape the narrative in the absence of any input from you.

The mistake you ALWAYS make is in thinking your routine of duck-dodge-obfuscate is far more clever than it actually is.

 

I try to be patient with those suffering from delusions, but you stretch the limits of my patience. This post is therefore not addressed to you, but to the majority of your fellows, who are well aware that I have never exchanged words with this LizK individual nor, until recently, with you, and the exchanges between you and me are contained, and well documented, in this thread. Hence, I am not the only one aware of your delusions about me and, no doubt, about many other things.

Your mention of psychotropic medications indicates a familiarity with them. Might I suggest you familiarise yourself with them again?

You may continue to address me - I have no control over that - but you will receive no further reply, and your continuing will indicate that perhaps the medications you mentioned might not be strong enough to assist you.

Good day.

 

If Flashlight intends to spend the rest of this thread talking past me, it's safe to assume there'll be no further meaningful contribution from his corner.

I take it no one else here has had trouble figuring out my answers so far, and if there are any follow up questions, I'm sure you won't hesitate to ask.

 

Since garamet seems unwilling to engage in the discussion and appears content to allow me to define her positions for her, I'll press on with examining the frontline post, which she claims is "very similar" (yet not identical) to her own beliefs. Developing......

 

So, here's what frontline had to say. Remember, garamet's beliefs are "very similar" to what frontline says here:

Soooooo......

1. Prosecute those who fail background checks with greater frequency (BTW, is failing a background check a prosecutable offense? Anyone care to cite statute?)

2. Strengthen and/or overhaul the mental health system

3. Abandon attempts to introduce new legislation / restrictions on weapons that weren't used at Sandy Hook and that account for only a small percentage of crimes.

So, garamet, please elaborate on the following questions:

In what ways could the "mental health system" have been strengthened that would have prevented Sandy Hook, or Aurora, or Virginia Tech?

Also, since "assault weapons" were not used at Sandy Hook and account for only a tiny percentage of firearm-related crime, are we to assume that you would support a ban on handguns? After all, it was handguns that were used at Sandy Hook & Virginia Tech.

 

I see, you're a strict rationalist.

OTOH, you've revealed that you don't own firearms for deep, dark mysterious reasons you're not willing to disclose here. Somehow I question whether you're really that dispassionate about the issue.

Unfortunately, you've failed to specify what you thinks needs to be done to improve the mental health system, in ways that would have prevented the most recent gun slaughters.

Which ones? What are the laws that could have enforced yet weren't, that directly led to Sandy Hook or Aurora?

 

Do you have a good link for that? Because as much as I wish that fucker hadn't used one (or shot anyone at all), the medical examiner said that the victims were all shot by rifle-caliber rounds.

 

Isn't it obvious?

Improving the health system is a long term solution that protects the constitutional right while identifying and hopefully helping mentally unbalanced people before they ever get near a weapon.

Proper screenings from birth would likely reveal many of these problems well before any violence of any kind happened.

Sure, you'd still have the rare person who snapped suddenly or crimes of extreme passion...there will be no 100% answer...but it will better get to the heart of the real problem instead of disarming thousands of innocent and responsible gun owners who would never harm anyone.

People kill people and thus people are the real problem that needs fixing. Period.

That and proper enforcement of the current gun laws should be all that's needed to control this situation as much as it can be controlled.

 

Nothing deep, dark, or mysterious about them. Simply not to be used as troll fodder in the Red Room. If your manners continue to improve, at some point you can PM me and I'll consider replying.

You've asked the same questions twice in as many posts. Are you done, or should I wait until you ask them a few more times?

 

My understanding has always been that while he had the rifles in his car, he took the handguns into the school. I may be wrong, I'll try to find a link. Somehow I have a feeling that the press keeps these kinds of details hard to find if the facts don't fit the gun-grabbing narrative.

 

Can't quote statute and verse, but if you're barred from buying guns, it's illegal to try.

An early report from a couple of days after the shooting suggested he used only handguns, and that report has been circulating the web lately as if it was new. But the facts have come out since that he used the Bushmaster rifle.

 

GATTACA! GATTACA! GATTACA!

 

Yup. Any time people start thinking up creative new ways to discriminate against other people, I get nervous.

 

Life insurance companies discriminate against smokers and skydivers. No doubt you'll be going after them, too.

 

You do understand the difference between a commercial operation and government, right?

 

So after three pages, has Garamet gotten around to telling Wordforge what should be done about guns or not?

 

Does Black Dove have at least a seventh-grade reading level, or is he simply too lazy to read the thread?

Yep. Gubmint Bad/Commercial Operation Good.

So, by that rubric, doctors who screen patients for mental health as well as physical health - Good or Bad?

 

Oh, I've read the thread alright. I still haven't seen anything that equates to a coherent answer.

Tell me Garamet, would you own a gun?

 

So you've dismissed frontline's opinion and Tamar's as well?

See, now, this proves you didn't read the thread.

 

Eh, I wanted the Cliff Notes version.

 

Can we just close this goddamn thread?

 

Because -?

 

So . . . no. Okay.

 

So, like Flashlight, you didn't get the answer you wanted. Okay.

You did say: "Any time people start thinking up creative new ways to discriminate against other people, I get nervous."

So either you didn't mean "any time" or you didn't mean "people." You meant "Only when Gubmint does it."

 

What discrimination?

Denying a gun to the mentally ill?

Sorry, but that's some discrimination I can get on board with.

As for Gattaca...I've never seen it so someone will have to explain what chanting that even meant.

 

I think Lanz's problem was with the idea that this could become a slipperly slope for barring folks from other things because of said mental illness.

And to take this idea further...where *would* we draw the line? There's no one that hasn't been depressed or needed some mental balancing at some point in their lives. Do we deny people the right to own because they thought about killing themselves over a high school crush three decades ago? Or because they may be upset with their estranged spouse that's taking them to the cleaners in a divorce? It's the same problem some folks have with the sex offender registry, where everything that's considered a sex crime gets lumped together--including things that no reasonable human being would find a danger, like having sex with a seventeen year old when one is eighteen or nineteen.

FWIW, I do agree that there needs to be better mental health programs in place, and better access to said programs. When I dealt with Kaiser, for example, I had to wait at least four weeks between appointments, because that was the next available slot. That's far too much time in between appointment for someone who may possibly be a danger to themselves or others.

 

It's a delicate area, and one where there's a danger of regulation being overzealous, which is why every little fiefdom creating 50 different laws would be a problem, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

Essentially I'd think you'd start with the DSM IV. It's not as if everyone ever treated for depression, for instance, would be subject. Very few here would argue that someone with frank psychosis a la Adam Lanza, for example, should be allowed free access to weapons. Personal privacy would be protected by HIPAA.

In some more evolved future time, mental illness will be recognized for what it is - a biochemical and/or conditioned glitch - and treated with the same care as physical illness.

In the meantime, no one here would argue that Stevie Wonder should be allowed to drive a car. But I can think of at least one or two who would argue that, with the proper guidance, he should be allowed to defend his home with guns.

Arguably, that disconnect in the American thought process could be seen as a form of psychosis.

 

Since this is the currently most-active gun thread:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...fter-he-opened-fire-at-atlanta-middle-school/