Again, it doesn't matter. I'm painted as a monster if I want crazy people to shoot people, or if I don't care if crazy people shoot people. Either way, it's the same.
To this point, you have not said anything that would indicate that you don't want "crazies" to have guns. In other words, you come across as a bit of a monster because we know that "crazies" with guns commit atrocities. We have a fair idea of the personality types that are most prone to do those things and you would let them buy guns.
Of course. Unless you want the state to be the arbiter on who should be able to defend themselves based on a psych eval, which is simply saying you want the state to remove the right of someone to defend themselves because the state doesn't like them.
Defend your self against what? Just how paranoid are you?
If you don't know, then how will you be able to tell if someone is having their rights removed unjustly?
The same way I know that person is qualified to drive, or sell insurance or cut my hair or provide legal representation or prepare construction drawings are anything else that requires a license. They have had to prove by test and, in some cases, demonstrate, that they are trained to do those things. I see gun ownership as no different.
Also, please note, if there is a doctor that can prove who the next Elliot Rodger is, he can have the person arrested.
IF the police. Note that that is a big if. The main trouble is, our laws are designed to punish, not prevent crime. Laws keep honest people honest but the criminal simply doesn't care.
Sometimes the truth hurts.
You have got to be kidding. Academia, where most psychologists have their souls, have been the lead in Eugenics, forced sterilization, post-birth killing of children, and advocacy of pedophilia.
Psychiatry has its dark past. But they have learned from from that past. Is it perfect? No. But then, name one institution of man that is.
Then you are a fool. The moment the state can get away with something tyrannical, it has done so. every. single. time.
So sending people to prison for breaking laws is tyrannical because the state takes away Their unalienable right to life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Interesting position.
That's what I said. You just restated the question. You need to be more specific which is the answer to the question.
In either case, you have never directly answered the question. You just use inflammatory rhetoric to attempt to avoid a direct answer. Which is a very plain statement of your position.
No. If the state removes a right from a single person, it starts down the road of tyranny. The more people it removes rights from, the more tyrannical it becomes. And once on the road, a government never goes back. Once on the road it needs to be replaced.
The state routinely removes rights. You have been shown this many times on this thread. All you do is stick your fingers in your ears and say la la la in a lame attempt to ignore the simple facts. Societies can and do limit rights. They have to. As the old saying goes, your rights end where my nose begins.
But until the threat is real, the state cannot remove a person's rights. So, please tell us who these people are, specifically, that should have their rights removed. And give us the objective measure you use to determine who these people are.
You will have to talk to psychiatrists and sociologists to determine this answer. You need people who are trained to recognize personality disorders and mental conditions that predispose a person towards mass murder. That is where I would start, talking to those with the training to see what can be done to identify these people before they kill.
You assumed I answered in the affirmative when I didn't concede to your logical fallacy.
You have. Repeatedly. You couch the second amendment in terms of self defense and state that everybody has the right to self defense. That is an affirmative answer.
Maybe you should tell us what the logical fallacy you are committing is so we can see you even understand the concept.
There is no logical fallacy. The wife beater fallacy assumes facts not in evidence and misleads people because of that. The question I have asked deals with real world, documented situations. We have seen it over and over and over. So the question is real, should people who are predisposed towards mass murder have unfettered access to guns? Note that predisposed covers mental conditions, personality disorders, drug dealers, gang members and terrorists. Should all of these people have unfettered access to guns?
Except for removing people's rights, you haven't advocated tyranny.
As noted, its only tyranny if I try to take it away from everybody. I have not and do not advocate that. I have and do advocate for appropriate training and licensing to carry a gun in public and I would like to see a better way to try to identify those people who are most likely to commit an atrocity before they do.
I haven't. That would be you projecting. I'm asking you to clarify before I answer because the question is a logical fallacy.
As noted above, it is an actual question based on real world examples and facts.
And we've proven it is a logical fallacy because: If I answer in the affirmative, I don't care if crazy people shoot people. If I answer in the negative, I become a tyrant like you.
That doesn't make it a fallacy, that just makes it a very hard question to answer honestly because I am asking you to publicly state your position. You are afraid to do so you use incendiary language to make your self feel better about not answering.
There is a more basic question that must be answered first in any logical fallacy of this type. You would have been curious what that more basic question is if you could think as well as me, or if you were interested in an honest conversation.
If you think there is a more basic question, please, impress us all with your better thinking.
lain:
