Should These People Have Guns?

125 posts / 0 new
Last post
Serviam6

[quote=Sandy Dillon]

Hey Serviam6 go to this web site and notice the pellet spray pattern for a shotgun fired at a distance of 28 feet!

http://www.firearmsid.com/A_distshotpatt.htm

At 28 feet the spray pattern is still pretty tight so how are you going to fit 66 people into an area just this big, seeing as you said 66 people could get hurt if there are 66 pellets fired towards them.

Maybe you are totally unaware of shotgun spray patterns and distances? Here is a question for you.If you fired all 6 rounds of a pellet load carrying 11 pellets in each round how far back would you have to be before all 66 pellets hit 66 different people?Wink

Very fair question my friend!

[/quote]

 

You've managed two whole posts without the fury of capslock, see it looks like we CAN learn from each other. I appreciate your effort Sandy thank you.

You're totally right, the practical application of my suggestion that 66 people could be killed from a shotgun seems like a very weak argument.

66 pellets flying around still seems more dangerous than 30 when you take into consideration bullets bouncing around. Looking at the list of injuries and deaths stemming from school shootings dating back to the 1700's the average ratio seems to be less than 5 people, hovering closer to 1 or 2.

Magazine capacity seems like a very unscientific approach to better stronger gun control.

We're falling into the weeds and getting caught up with semantics.

To answer your question, yes they should have access to firearms providing they are mentally fit for ownership. Having PTSD is not an affliction soley associated with soldiers returning from war.

Sandy Dillon

RE::You've managed two whole posts without the fury of capslock, see it looks like we CAN learn from each other. I appreciate your effort Sandy thank you.

LIKE I SAID:::Hey Serviam6 I have never ever got upset about someone using caps. Never.

When the debate is not going well for some people they will revert to complaining about something other than the issue at hand.

You own guns right? And you get upset about something as trivial as someone using caps?

Now that concerns me you have guns and the use of caps upsets you.

Makes one wonder what else would upset you? You know something a little more trivial than using caps? 

Bacchus

Actually Sandy, Its a internet standard in forums and email that using all caps is shouting and considered rude. And a somewhat disturbing indicator of someones state of mind. He is just the first to point it out, he is not the first to notice it

 

Or even comment on it elsewhere.

 

Aside from that he is trying to have a civil conversation with you. Insulting him will just get you suspended then banned and then you get to converse no more. Would that be worth it?

Sandy Dillon

RE::To answer your question, yes they should have access to firearms providing they are mentally fit for ownership.

Glad you said that! After about 2 years debating with Canadian gun toters I came to the realization we needed stronger gun control laws!

In my opinion evey gun owner should be required to have a mental evaluation done he passes he keeps his guns he flungs he has his guns confiscated.

Why did I come to this decision? Well when gun owners get upset at such trivial things like someone using caps on a forum THIS concerns me!

Seems even the N.R.A. are starting to admit mental health issues and guys with guns do not mix!

Seems I DO KNOW of what i speak eh?Wink

Sandy Dillon

RE::To answer your question, yes they should have access to firearms providing they are mentally fit for ownership. Having PTSD is not an affliction soley associated with soldiers returning from war.

Aw for your info I believe PTSD (you used caps!) is considered a mental illness!

CHECKMATE!

Slumberjack

I’d be happy if we could just get the people who abhor violence and guns to stop yelling.

Serviam6

[quote=Sandy Dillon]

RE::To answer your question, yes they should have access to firearms providing they are mentally fit for ownership. Having PTSD is not an affliction soley associated with soldiers returning from war.

Aw for your info I believe PTSD (you used caps!) is considered a mental illness!

CHECKMATE!

[/quote]

[quote=Sandy Dillon]

Serviam6 said this::To answer your question, yes they should have access to firearms providing they are mentally fit for ownership. Having PTSD is not an affliction soley associated with soldiers returning from war.

Fact is Serviam6 PTSD is a mental dis-order!!!!!!!

HELLO!!!!!!Wink

[/quote]

 

I can't tell if you have genuine issues communicating in a calm and rational manner or you're just trolling so I'm going to thank you for your input and wish you luck on your crusade.

Sandy Dillon

Anybody else agree?

Does anybody here besides me and Rick Nauert PhDSenior News Editor and John M. Grohol, Psy.D. agree that PTSD is in fact a mental dis-order?

http://psychcentral.com/news/2009/02/23/treatment-for-ptsd-and-another-mental-illness/4270.html

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

PTSD is a disorder that presents itself to varying degrees to many people in society.  Should all the people who witnessed a bloody accident last week be categorized differently than the rest of us.  Because the fact is that of the people who see such an event most of them will suffer from some of the symptoms and a certain percentage will have PTSD related problems.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I don't know the definition of dis-order so I am not qualified to answer your question.

Sandy Dillon

[quote=kropotkin1951]

I don't know the definition of dis-order so I am not qualified to answer your question.

[/quote]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dis-order

men·tal
 adjective \ˈmen-təl\

Definition of MENTAL

 a: of or relating to the mind; specifically: of or relating to the total emotional and intellectual response of an individual to external reality <mental health>

b: of or relating to intellectual as contrasted with emotional activity

dis·or·der
 transitive verb \(ˌ)dis-ˈȯr-dər, (ˌ)diz-\

Definition of DISORDER

: to disturb the order of

: to disturb the regular or normal functions of

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

So dis-order is the same as disorder?  Why do you keep spelling it with a hyphen?

Sandy Dillon

Serviam6 said this::To answer your question, yes they should have access to firearms providing they are mentally fit for ownership. Having PTSD is not an affliction soley associated with soldiers returning from war.

Fact is Serviam6 PTSD is a mental disorder!!!!!!!

HELLO!!!!!!Wink

 

http://psychcentral.com/news/2009/02/23/treatment-for-ptsd-and-another-mental-illness/4270.html

Treatment for PTSD and Another Mental Illness

By Rick Nauert PhDSenior News Editor
 Reviewed by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on February 26, 2009

Sandy Dillon

[quote=kropotkin1951]

PTSD is a disorder that presents itself to varying degrees to many people in society.  Should all the people who witnessed a bloody accident last week be categorized differently than the rest of us.  Because the fact is that of the people who see such an event most of them will suffer from some of the symptoms and a certain percentage will have PTSD related problems.

[/quote]

Agree some get PTSD some don't. But you did not answer my question: Do you think PTSD is a mental disorder?

Sandy Dillon

[quote=kropotkin1951]

So dis-order is the same as disorder?  Why do you keep spelling it with a hyphen?

[/quote]

That threw you off did it? O.K. I'll try to edit so it'll be clearer for you!

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I think that some of the disorders in the DSM are not disorders but within the normal range of human behaviour.  They change it periodically because parts of it are always being shown to be wrong.  For example neither homosexuality nor retardation are now seen as mental disorders. I think that PTSD is a spectrum disorder and at one end it is a mental health issue and at the other end it is a type of grieving that is normal. 

Sandy Dillon

RE::I think that PTSD is a spectrum disorder and at one end it is a mental health issue and at the other end it is a type of grieving that is normal.

O.k. lets say someone is at the mental health issue end of the spectrum should these people be allowed to have guns?

Slumberjack

My advice KP would be to not play this silly game.  I find it offensive at any rate that all PTSD sufferers, i.e. 'these people,' are being lumped into one category in this manner to support a reactionary political argument of debatable effectiveness.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

You are right SJ there is no dialogue happening only a silly game but I wanted to be polite and thus asked the questions. The last question shows that he wants to play some sort of, 60 Questions Until I Get You, game.  Have fun playing with yourself Sandy.

 

MegB

I have no issue with guns of any kind, but I do have issues with the people who seem to have a compulsion to use them to kill things.

Don't get me wrong- if I am forced to live in a post-apocalyptic world where zombies have eaten my family I'm all for guns, and lots of them. Until then ....

Unionist Unionist's picture

We now have 4 threads talking about gun control.

I suggest we rename [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/national-news/gun-registry-back-news-thread-2]this longstanding thread[/url] as "Gun control in Canada" and close the rest. There is really no different angle to the various discussions. Unless we want to leave the Newtown one open, because the issues in the U.S. are quite separate.

As for Rebecca's not having an issue with guns of any kind, I suggest it's important to think about and respect the many victims of gun violence where the guns in question have just been lying around the house and became instruments of accidental or impulsive murder and maiming. It happens all the time. That's an important issue which is entirely separate from trying to crystal-ball predict what kind of weird people will murder others. Guns are a problem.

 

Maysie Maysie's picture

Unionist's suggestions have inspired me to delurk.

I've been reading this thread mostly for the amusement of watching a certain babbler use caps. Some rhetorical styles are irresistable to me.

However, the premise of the thread, indeed, the thread title, is appalingly offensive and extremely ignorant regarding people with mental illnesses in general, and those who have or have had PTSD in particular. I haven't commented until now nor have I made a complaint to the mods about this, so that's on me.

But if folks ever wonder about babble being "mental health friendly", this thread is a great example of "No, it is not".

Wanna talk endlessly about guns and gun control? Fill your boots. But unless you know what the hell you're talking about, leave mental health issues out of it or risk looking really really ignorant.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

[quote=Unionist]

Guns are a problem.

[/quote]

Sure they are.

So are cars, which are certainly responsible for more death and injury from rage and accident because they have been left lying around. That is why we have laws governing both. What we don't have in the case of cars is a failure to recognize they have a useful purpose and that they are not inherently evil, calls for outright bans, or guilt by association, and an assumption that all drivers are the same, and will somehow become more prone to running down dogs and small children the more time they spend behind the wheel.

This thread has been a joke from the start - at times funny, but when it turns to the kind of labelling that has just been rightly called out, not funny at all.

Strangely enough, in one of the other threads when someone mentioned the the role of mental health in gun violence he got accused of supporting NRA arguments. Didn't happen this time, for some reason.

Also, the actual issue never wound up being discussed, which is too bad, because some of the real flaws in the legislation as it existed concerned that very point. Last time I saw an FAC application (they are offline now, for some reason) it included questions which asked the applicant to self-diagnose and declare things like depression, alcoholism, addiction, and feelings of suicide.

Speaking of bad jokes....

 

 

Sandy Dillon

RE::So are cars, which are certainly responsible for more death and injury from rage and accident because they have been left lying around.

The difference is cars were meant to be a mode of transportation guns on the otherhand WERE built for killing!

A gun is the most effective ""personal"" killing tool ever invented by mankind! 

Because of that fact we need stricter laws when it comes to guns than we do for cars! 

Point two there are a lot more cars in Canada than there are guns so if you take the per capita stats cars don't even come close to the deliberate gun death rate per capita!!!! 

Simlified:: How many cars are used as a killing tool versus how many guns are used for the intent to kill someone? 

Pages