General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI am a socially awkward young asperger's man. Should I forfiet my right to bear arms?
Seriously because that is what some sound like they are saying. For clarification I do not own a gun nor do I have that much interest in owning one. I just think this demonization of those of of us who are socially weird or awkward isn't right. I am one of the sweetest most understanding people you'll probably have the pleasure of meeting despite the fact that I am generally quiet if I do not know you too well. That doesn't mean I am plotting anything or that I am going to go shoot up innocent people at a school or mall, I am not a psychopath I do have emotions even if I don't express them too outwardly due to being a introvert.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)America.
Speaking as a socially awkward not so young aspergers man myself.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Speaking only for myself, I won't voluntarily give up any of my rights.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)We had to fight a war to take away their right to own slaves.
We might end up fighting a war to take away the right to own guns.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)A lot of us believe that private gun-ownership isn't an actual conferred right (unless you're a member of the state militia.1) and is only effected by abrogating the rights of the public to be free from the constant threat of gun violence.
1: I'd be game for that--they can own guns but they have to be serving in the National Guard. If the NG won't take them...then no guns.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Guns are a means for affecting that right just as voting is a means for affecting one's conscience within a community.
As I noted in my previous statement, slave owners can only exert their "right" at the expense of others, namely the right to freedom of conscience -- and the right to self-defense.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)of another party.
Moreover, you're citing a false statistic. Defensive gun uses do not result solely in fatalities. There are also woundings and incidents where the gun is brandished defensively without being fired.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)the gun is brandished defensively without being fired:
There are no falsifiable studies in this matter.
As for rights, life is an enumerated right in the constitution, see the 14th and 8th amendments. So your 2nd amendment is in conflict with another enumerated right. In any case, I will work tirelessly until the 2nd is repealed.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)responsible for violations of the 14th and 8th Amendments? Self-defense by citizens is not cruel or unusual punishment nor a loss of due process.
Just up-thread you advocated for knives in place of guns for self-defense. By what contortion do you image stabbing a criminal in self-defense to not be a violation of your theory other than BECUZ GUNZ!
The legal theories dreamt up by Controllers get increasingly bizarre as the Controllers become increasingly aware of their failure.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)people are accidentally wounded or killed with a gun than criminals are justifiably killed or wounded with a gun.
I also didn't have a right to self defense, so nice straw man you constructed there. And if we're going to start throwing out names.
NUTTER
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)You're claiming you can abrogate the right to self-defense because it violates protections against cruel and unusual punishment and due process to shoot an attacker. Yet, somehow you claim it isn't cruel and unusual to stab an attacker because of fewer accidents.
Accidents and self-defense are two completely different scenarios with completely different actors.
Alcohol causes more accidents that result in killings and woundings far more than it ever saved. By your bizarre theories we should reinstate Prohibition.
How did you not have a right to self-defense? I'm not even sure what you're claiming is a straw man.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)defense. That is the straw man you keep constructing, so knock it off.
This conversation is about guns, which are not the same thing as self defense.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Just as voting is the best means for allowing people to express their consciences in social institutions.
To deny guns for self-defense tips the balance of power decisively to the physically strong. Those who are weaker or infirm are subject wholly to those who are more fit. "Sorry your stalker ex is kicking in the door and is about to stab you but its better this way because some guy somewhere might accidentally shoot someone else" is a sad statement for a society to make.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)wouldn't have if guns were illegal.
Sorry but it IS a numbers game and their lives matter too.
EDIT: Also, only semi related, but can I ask - why the movie scenarios where bad guy = knife and good guy = gun?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)is baffling.
If it's a numbers game and banning things works then reinstate Prohibition.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)killed, murdered, raped, assaulted, and robbed is baffling.
EDIT: Also what's with the movie scenarios of bad guy = knife good guy = gun all the time?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)from robbers, rapists, stalkers, murderers, etc. so long as the number of accidental and criminal uses of guns outnumber the number of legitimate uses. You're telling them they have to just accept the evils visited upon them.
First, the only person responsible is the person who commits the act. Unlike Controllers who see negligence of some and assign it as guilt to all.
Second, removing guns will not remove violence.
I have no idea how you came up with that. My only reference to knives were based on your absurd assertion that shooting a criminal is a violation of 8A and 14A rights but you advocate knives for self-defense as if they too would not violate your theory.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)I said allowing weapons that accidentally (and intentionally as well) kill and injure more INNOCENT people than they save is a violation of those people's 8th and 14th amendment rights! I said NOTHING about this in the case of assailants. NEVER, NOT ONCE!
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)accidents are not grounds for abrogating the rights of others who are not responsible for the accident. And for all the wrongful death cases that have gone through the courts over the centuries how many have been successfully presented as 8A and 14A cases?
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)believe (in my ideal constitution) you would have a right to self defense, you would not have the right to have a gun. The current constitution and court decisions say you do, which is why I won't quit working until the 2nd is repealed and/or more liberal courts neuter it.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)protect the RKBA. In fact, I'm curious if those states could even vote in favor of repealing the federal 2A as long as their own state constitutions remain unaltered. However, electorally, simple magazine capacity limits are losers so I'm not sure who is going to sign on to your cause.
Do you happen to believe in reincarnation? Because I don't think you're going to see anything in several life times.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)is much more willing to be for getting rid of RKBA.
As for reincarnation, god no. I am willing to sign onto radical life extension and cryonics though.
mythology
(9,527 posts)The evidence shows exactly the opposite in fact.
Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
You should also check out their section on how increases in gun ownership doesn't actually keep women safer. This fantasy land that people live in where a gun will save them, just doesn't exist.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I'd wager the 4A has freed more guilty people than it had protected innocent but we should still keep it.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)comparable to KILLING and MAIMING innocent people that your little toys do.
And like I said, it is reason enough for me to work on destroying the 2nd amendment.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)How do you know the person being set free hasn't killed or maimed someone or go on to kill and maim?
If you want to play statistics you could also seek to reinstate Prohibition. How many people are harmed by alcohol or contract diseases due to abuse of alcohol? How many crimes have alcohol as a significantly contributing factor? DUI, sexual assault, domestic violence. At least guns have practical purposes. What is the practical purpose of alcohol? Over indulgence of alcohol kills 4300 under-aged drinkers every year. That's more than 4 Sandy Hooks every week.
Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)One woman Texas Representative was held hostage to a shooting at a Texas Lubby's Cafeteria. She was instrumental in getting concealed passed.
One important thing has changed since then. Cell phones, they can get help faster than a person looking for gun in her purse on the top of the dinner table. How many concealed carry are really willing to sacrifice themselves to save others? Themselves yes because that is why they bought the gun.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)I bet its 10x higher than guns. I had to get stitches one time when I cut myself with a box cutter, and Ive got small cuts several times. Never accidently hurt myself with a gun.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)unheard of.
branford
(4,462 posts)Since you correctly want to compare accidental firearm injuries versus defensive use of firearms, regardless of whether it results in a fatality, let's do so.
Defensive Use of Firearms: (per CDC-sponsored researched during the Obama administration)
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence:
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1#ix
Firearm Accidents:
According to data from the CDC, in 2013, there were 505 unintentional firearm deaths, and 16,864 nonfatal, unintentional firearm injuries
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html
Contrary to your allegations, it sure seems like there are significantly more defensive firearm uses than accidental injuries and deaths resulting from firearms.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)The defensive use of firearms one because:
1. It's not falsifiable or verifiable. How can you tell for sure that said people used a gun defensively, they just said they did.
2. It doesn't prove that a firearm was NEEDED to get rid of an assailant. A knife or even just an assertive attitude may have been enough to get them to back off. Criminals prey on those who don't stand up for themselves, weapon or not, big physical stature or not. Think predatory animals: why prey on the assertive prey when there is more docile prey? There's a reason young prey is most often taken.
So provide a falsifiable and independently verifiable study that proves significant defensive use of firearms where only firearms would have done the trick and then you'll convince me. Until then, you're pissing in the wind. And even quoting the 3 million Lott study shows how in deep of the gun propaganda you are, that one can be (plausibly debunked, but I can't ever 100% prove it wrong) with math alone.
branford
(4,462 posts)Read the CDC study. The defensive use estimates include research by gun control advocates and the numbers are still staggering. They are at least still an order of magnitude greater than the number of accidental injuries and death.
You can eliminate a full 90% of the lowest estimate of defense gun uses cited in the study to account for your claims that some people in the studies were lying or mistaken or a firearm might not have been necessary for self-defense (an unusual contention), and legitimate defensive firearm uses are still more than double or triple the number of accidents in any given year.
If you don't like my data from the Obama CDC, the alleged gold standard according the gun control advocates, feel free to provide other reliable data. You will not find anything notably different.
With all due respect, you have your head in the sand, and will simply not accept any data that's not in accord with your preconceived notions and biases. Do you ever wonder why major gun control groups never cite comparisons of defensive gun use and accidents. It's because it runs contrary to their positions.
Lastly, your demand that you get to decide the best tool for someone to lawfully defend themselves is quite audacious.
First, items like knives, stun guns, batons, and even in many jurisdictions, pepper spray, are regulated as tightly as guns under pertinent self-defense statutes. Second, in all jurisdictions, you can only use a lethal weapon like a gun or knife in self-defense if you have a reasonable fear of death or serious injury to yourself or other innocents. If using a knife in a self-defense encounter would have been legal, so would a gun. Third, a gun is the ultimate equalizer. Your pop psychology aside concerning "assertive prey," small, weak, old, disabled, etc, as well as outnumbered, individuals are always at a distinct disadvantage in virtually all violent criminal encounters. A gun is simply the most effective tool to even the statistical odds. It certainly isn't foolproof, but it's a heck of a lot better than a close-quarters melee weapon that requires far more skill, agility and training, and is generally ineffective against multiple assailants, like a knife or stun gun.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)I said I would accept a falsifiable, verifiable study (do you know what that means? I don't mean this an insult, I will gladly explain) and even change my view on it if it proved the conclusions these "estimate studies" conclude, again, provided the other parameter that I laid out in which you would also have to show only a gun would have solved the situation.
However, if said study showed the opposite, would you change your mind? I bet you wouldn't... speaking of people with their heads in the sand.
The Obama/CDC study is once again, an estimate study. It is not falsifiable or scientific, nor does it satisfy my other condition.
branford
(4,462 posts)occurred in greater numbers / rate than legitimate defensive uses of firearms.
Feel free to discard my data in its entirety if you find it lacking (although we appear to agree on the accident figures).
However, since you are the one who proffered this initial claim, I expect that you can now provide your own reliable data and citations to support it. Instead of just alleging all or some my numbers are wrong or unreliable, I welcome a review of your sources.
If you have no data or other relevant citations to support your position, simply have the courtesy to amend your prior statement as being your unsupported opinion, for it certainly could not be an established fact, particularly in light of my countervailing information.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)injuries to "bad guys". Thankfully, yes, we agree on that because that is falsifiable data. If I said there were more of those than defensive gun uses, I'm sorry, was not what I meant. But I'll go back and check my posts to see if I said that.
As for defensive gun use, I said there is no falsifiable data on that, which is a 100% reasonable position to have. If you're willing to accept softer data, fine, but I'm not. I only accept falsifiable stuff in either direction, both for what supports my opinion and what doesn't.
branford
(4,462 posts)does not appear to support your contention that "firearms accidents cause more deaths and injuries than justifiable shots cause death and injuries to 'bad guys'".
First, we both appear to accept the hard CDC data concerning numbers of accidental firearm injuries and deaths. For 2013, the most recent year data is available, the total appears to be 17,369.
Second, if a defensive use of a firearm is lawful, the other party needs to have been an assailant under virtually every self-defense statue. You normally lose your right to lethal self-defense if you're engages in criminal conduct.
I'm confused why you placed "bad guys" in quotes? Are you implying some subjective criteria needs to enter the discussion concerning whether the object of a lawful defensive use of a firearm "deserved it" or something similar?
Third, if a defensive use of a firearm was lawful, by definition, it means there had to be a reasonable belief of serious threat to life or serious bodily harm (usually including rape and other serious felonies). Why must the lawful defensive firearm use result in injury or death to count in any relevant utility comparison of unjustified, generally non-criminal, injuries (i.e., accidents) vs. lawful, justified use (with both data sets presumably dealing with lawfully owned firearms)? The life saved is relevant regardless of whether the assailant in killed, injured or totally unharmed.
Lastly, you still need to provide your data source for the number of "justifiable shots cause death and injuries to 'bad guys'" in order for us to evaluate your conclusion that they are indeed greater than death or injuries from firearm accidents. Until you offer that data, your contention is mere opinion, not fact (and runs counter to the CDC report that your find unpersuasive).
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)with the gun who defends himself is a good guy either. But this is just an annoyance of language.
Ok, as far as justifiable homicide with guns by private citizens, about 250 per year
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_15_justifiable_homicide_by_weapon_private_citizen_2008-2012.xls
Crunchy Frog
(26,579 posts)It was found "justifiable" by a court, but no decent, sane person thinks it actually was. How do those statistics get compiled?
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)Zimmerman was acquitted in court under a self-defense theory.
As an aside, no matter how unlikable Zimmerman may have been, as an attorney I can honestly state that the prosecution's case presentation and admitted evidence and witnesses were so incredibly poor and embarrassing that I don't believe I've witnesses a similar legal fiasco since the O.J. Simpson trial.
Crunchy Frog
(26,579 posts)The definition of "justifiable homicide in self defense" is pretty elastic in this country.
Or maybe you believe that if Zimmie hadn't been packing, he would be dead at Travon's hands. Same with all the recent incidents where cops have shot unarmed black men in the back while they were fleeing.
If you make the definition of "self defense" elastic enough, you can vastly inflate the numbers of incidents where "bad guys" were stopped by the use of firearms, Trayvon being just one example.
branford
(4,462 posts)If you watched the Zimmerman trial, as I mostly did, I don't know how any reasonably person could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If you believe there was an injustice, direct your criticisms at the failings of the prosecutor or accept that the admissible evidence simply didn't exist to support a conviction.
Moreover, if you're referring to Michael Brown with your "shot unarmed black men in the back while they were fleeing" comment, I doubt it would be considered part of the data set we are discussing (although I'm not totally certain), and would likely be included in separate figures concerning police uses of force which are judged under different standards than civilian self-defense.
I would also refer you to the Obama DOJ's report of the Brown incident which quite conclusively (and surprisingly) supported Darren Wilson's account of the altercation.
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf
Crunchy Frog
(26,579 posts)from that violent young punk, and would probably be dead if he hadn't been packing. So the "justifiable homicide" figures are an accurate reflection of the number of people who have used firearms to protect themselves and their families.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just glad that we got the question cleared up.
branford
(4,462 posts)there are articles and studies that examine the circumstances of most justifiable homicides, particularly within particular states. These articles were quite prolific during the Zimmerman era. Like accidental deaths, the numbers are relatively small, and it's not too difficult to dig down into the details if you so desire.
Consistent with the rest of this part of the thread, the number of incidents expand greatly if accidental or self-defense non-fatal injuries are included in the data set, no less defensive firearm uses resulting in no injuries inflicted at all.
branford
(4,462 posts)likely a far larger figure than fatalities (just as with accidents).
I also still don't understand why any comparisons require the defensive use of the firearm to result in death or injury. Legitimate defensive use of firearm need not result in death or injury, and in fact, such a situation is preferable. Often the mere lawful brandishing of a firearm ends a potentially deadly criminal encounter.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)no conclusive proof that brandishing a firearm was required as opposed to brandishing fists or knives (or other weapons).
branford
(4,462 posts)That's fine, and you're certainly entitled to believe whatever you want, but if you're making policy demands, no less as extreme as "destroying the Second Amendment," it should be based on clear data, not opinion masquerading as fact.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)works.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)The reasons for owning one are usually only the contents of a paranoid mind.
Whiskeytide
(4,461 posts)... "Give up your guns for your own good - or we'll kill you".
It would make a great Monty Python sketch.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)about just this. I'm not sure that it could happen on DU.
I'm not sure that I have a firm position, one way or the other, but a truly thoughtful conversation might help me to arrive at one.
To start with, I've always been ambivalent about the 2nd amendment, and I've never been sure I understood the purpose. Probably because I've listened to so many twist it to fit their own purpose for the decades of my life.
What was the real purpose, and how does that fit up with today's society?
When we talk about the right to bear "arms," what kinds of arms do we mean? All arms? Just some?
When we talk about taking away that right, again, what kinds of arms? All? Some?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)was still the possibility that outside foreign powers might attack and attempt to take over the fledgling nation, and wanted all of the states to maintain armed militias, because we didn't really have a full time army.
Hence the half of the second amendment that is always ignored by people who 'defend' the second amendment. The part about being part of a 'well-regulated militia'.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)the government moved to seize civilian-owned weapons caches.
Your theory for abrogating the 2A rests wholly on the assumption the MIC will always be a loyal and capable defender. Perhaps you love and trust the MIC that much but many of us do not.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)I'm only asking because I haven't engaged these people. What do they say about that "well-regulated militia?"
jwirr
(39,215 posts)we realize that there are different uses for guns (I am thinking of providing food) that are legitimate.
There is no legitimate excuse for one human being to own another human being.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)it was all about that 'well regulated militia' being available to fight off potential foreign invaders.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)militia is the National Guard.
This whole thread makes me uneasy as taking away all guns is exactly what the NRA is using to scare their members and others who just own a gun.
My family owns guns. Some are old antiques but they still fire that have belonged to the family for generations. Most are hunting guns. And the rest are for using on a shooting range which we have on our own property. The guns are all kept in a safe (the old fashion kind banks used to have) and there are only two people who know the combination.
We agree that we need more regulations on who and how the guns should be sold. And I am totally against military style guns in the hands of ordinary citizens.
And as I have said I am worried about using an illness as part of the government regulation system because it is a blanket indictment of a large group because of a few in the group.
Maybe we need to take a look at the type of gun and what that type of gun is used for instead of looking at all guns as the same.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)and old style slug hunting rifles are used in very few attacks of any sort. Your retail killers seem to prefer handguns, and your nutbags want entire arsenals full of 'manly' AR-whatevers and tec whatevers.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)killings as much. And if they are the old fashion type they are not going to kill a group of people and wound more.
former9thward
(31,974 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)No one has the right to terrorize the public which is what we have now with the right of every sick bastard in America able to buy military grade weapons.
This is not what the founders had in mind.
Mr Sancho Panza
(20 posts)You and I cannot go out and legally purchase "military grade" weapons. The average person simply cannot do this but you let me know just as soon as it's legal for everyone to go to a gun store and purchase a MK-19 or a fully automatic M2 or a fully automatic M249 or even an M4 or M16 with an option for "burst" fire. Can you go out and legally purchase an RPG or TOW?
Let me know when it is legal for everyone to buy military grade weapons.
Fla_Democrat
(2,547 posts)So, we should arm up, and go to war, to disarm people and stop all the killing....
And some folks can't understand why others don't embrace their 'reasonable solutions' for 'common sense' gun control laws....
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)
ileus
(15,396 posts)
Paladin
(28,252 posts)
(Sarcasm alert, for those invariably in need of one.)
840high
(17,196 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Vinca
(50,261 posts)
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)People with more than a couple guns, (including guns carried in cars) should be required to have insurance coverage.
Let the insurance Corps regulate who they will insure. Insurance Corps are already careful who they cover with car, home and personal liability insurance.
Let the NRA Corp.(gun sales) and the Insurance Corps(payouts for gun 'accidents') duke it out over how easy it should be for people to have gun collections.
Less lobbyists banging on our elected in washingtondc would be a very positive benefit of required gun insurance.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)No doubt they would be happy to have the extra business, and offer discounts for members
No insuror would cover criminal or negligent acts- they're greedy, not stupid
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)I know people out in Bush Alaska who would get pretty hungry if they couldn't take a moose or caribou for their subsistence. If you're going to be so Draconian about gun ownership, you should at least give the hunters a waiver. And I say this as someone who has never owned a gun but certainly enjoys a good moose stew provided by my hunter brother.
tavernier
(12,377 posts)before guns were invented?
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)You're going to go there? Let's just send them all back to the Stone Age.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)n/t
ck4829
(35,045 posts)You should not have any of your rights taken away.
I think people are making a mistake by looking at the quiet, the introvert, the different, the eccentric as a potential problem. They are not.
Lanza, Rodger, this guy, and others (Including those who have no psychological record at all) had a severe problem, they saw themselves as the only real thinking human in all of existence and everyone else is not worthy of life. This mindset needs to be deemed inappropriate.
OneGrassRoot
(22,920 posts)I don't know if it's human nature or simply our society, but the tendency to want everything to be black or white is not only destructive, it leads to little meaningful progress.
I've heard variations of this my whole life:
Starting back in the 70's: "Just bomb the whole Middle East and make it a parking lot." Dealing with the complexities (and our responsibility as a nation) is too much for most people. Just kill everyone creating a problem and be done with it.
People have never stopped saying that about urban areas where there is horrific drug/gang/gun violence. "Just let them all kill one another and stay out of it." Heaven forbid we deal with the myriad, complex factors resulting in the ongoing violence.
Same messaging now concerning all Mexicans, thanks to Trump.
Same messaging about all people of Middle Eastern descent.
Just "get rid of all of them."
But now there is an obvious trend of young white men and mass shootings. Surely we aren't going to see messaging of, "Just get rid of all of them. Put them all in psyche wards until they're 25" or something ridiculous like that. This hits way too close to home for too many white people.
It's complicated. I feel we all have "mental illness" to varying degrees; or maybe it's more accurate to say our society is not well. At all.
Yes, I'm for gun control. Absolutely. I'm troubled by the influence of the NRA and gun manufacturers on our society as I am by the pharmaceutical industry and other huge lobbies who only care about $$$$$$.
Yet I feel it's important to look at the big picture here and realize it's complex. We have to approach things in a multi-pronged fashion, treating the underlying disease and its various symptoms that are manifesting -- both chronically and acutely.
We need to triage, if you will.
Most importantly, we need to establish our values as a society before we can triage and set priorities.
In my very strong opinion, we need a full on cultural transformation.
ZM90
(706 posts)
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)at a school, theater or mall. The steady drone of slaughter in some urban locales is largely ignored, yet those deaths statistically overwhelm these mass murders.
As you and others have mentioned, the "young white men" commit these most feared murders, but in many urban areas it is young black men who do the murdering. It is something people on DU wish to avoid as it doesn't fit the Narrative of "gun death" politics. We fear talking about race and murder unless it fits the young white men Narrative. They are much safer to condemn, mull over, and expand into a whole culture and society of white male transgressions. This devalues the whole topic of murder and crime in our society, and frankly devalues the lives of blacks; after all, most of those killed by the black murderer are black.
OneGrassRoot
(22,920 posts)I actually think the urban violence is, while complex like most issues, much more straightforward than the murders committed by young, white men from primarily middle-class backgrounds.
Generations of institutionalized racism, creating ghettos and essentially imprisoning groups of people (those who aren't literally imprisoned, that is), is one tremendous factor leading to gang and other urban violence.
While many young people feel isolated and disconnected from society and feel they are being oppressed in various ways, it is much, much more tangible and overt in the case of youth living in urban areas where violence is prevalent. Our society in general, let alone the racism in law enforcement and the criminal justice system, essentially tells them, "Your life doesn't matter."
That aspect of our gun violence problem is a tremendous issue, taking innocent lives every single day, and the efforts of Black Lives Matter is raising awareness of this and other issues facing the AA community. That violence is largely localized to specific areas, however.
It shouldn't deflect from the fear people have of these random mass shootings occurring all over, with no rhyme or reason.
Mr Sancho Panza
(20 posts)It's very difficult to get past it. If you can convince everyone that we are all part of the same family it might help but good luck with that. There is too much "us vs. them" old school tribal mentality going on. Not enough, "hey, there is a problem and we should work together to figure out the best way to solve it." going on.
If we were all on the same team, there would be no competition...no "us vs. them", just one big pile of cooperation. As with any family or team there would still be disagreements about the best coarse of action to take but there would be less demonization and dehumanization against those who have different ideas.
Our two political parties could go a long way towards healing the divides that separate us into different camps but they are only human so I can't put all the blame on them for not being able to take the lead.
We do need a full on cultural transformation we need a bridge that connects all of us together instead of walls of rhetoric and polemics which only serve to keep us divided.
I don't see how that is going to be possible until we get rid of money.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Reading it reminded me of a Krishnamurti quote "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
I think that we have a profoundly sick society and instead of questioning it, most of us just try to adapt to it as well as we can. I am not so sure that is the healthy thing to do.
ryan_cats
(2,061 posts)Why do people who claim they have past lives always claim to be Napoleon and not some anonymous peasant who died from the black plague?
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)How about "died of septic shock due to minor toenail injury."
ZM90
(706 posts)I never laid claim to anything like that so the metaphor confused me.
ryan_cats
(2,061 posts)As a male who suffers from Klinefelter syndrome, I am sympathetic.
ZM90
(706 posts)cpompilo
(323 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)I've seen it posted several times over the years.
With the low post count, most will also consider you a troll so don't look for many responses that take you seriously.
No one wants to demonize folks, that's why everyone must be disarmed instead of picking who can have the right to defend themselves. It's the only way to be progressive on the issue.
ZM90
(706 posts)I've been a DU member since 2010.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Did you automatically have a high post count when you joined? Pretty sure I started with 1 lowly post.
That is the most ridiculous sort of snobbery I've ever seen, and sadly you're not alone.
ileus
(15,396 posts)MIRT handles the trolls, and I have confidence in MIRT.
You're just being nasty to someone with a low post count.
I mean. seriously? Does that make you feel good about yourself? Superior in some way?
On edit, rather than bumping this thread: I have more posts than you. Does that make me somehow better?
Of course not. You're just silly.
-none
(1,884 posts)available guns of all kinds, just for the wanting by almost everyone that thinks they would want one or more firearms.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Yes, I do think the current criteria for being disqualified from possessing firearms on mental health grounds are too narrow. However, that certainly doesn't indicate that extending the criteria to constitute what amounts to a blanket ban for anyone with a behavioral health diagnosis is called for. The vast majority of diagnoses aren't associated with violent (or suicidal) behavior.
scrabblequeen40
(334 posts)The odds of you needing a gun are infinitesimally small. The risk of an accident is too high to ignore.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)I don't have a good answer to your question, because I don't have a clear position on the second amendment myself. I can argue all sides of the issue.
I can share a story with you though. A real story about something that happened this week:
One of my students had been absent, on a family hunting trip, for two weeks. Her family does this every fall, filling their freezers with meat for the winter. She came back way behind, and I was sitting with her, going over some things she'd missed while she was out. I asked, "Did everyone fill their tags?" She told me that she and her mom did (she's 12), but that her uncle did not, so would be going back out. Then she said, "My brother feels left out, but we don't let him shoot because he's asperger's. We're not sure he's safe with a gun."
So, very clearly, there are people who think those with Asperger's should not bear arms.
The conversation I've been hearing, though, has been about mental illness, and I don't consider Asperger's a mental illness. If I trusted anyone with guns, and to be honest, I don't, the Aspie's I've known would have been just as trustworthy, for the most part, as anyone else.
Your last line: "due to being an introvert."
I'm also an introvert, and to the general non-introvert population, that makes me suspect. Our society tends to view introversion as some sort of mental illness, as well. Look at my DU name: I'm a Lone Wolf. I'm a Lone Wolf because I don't fit comfortably with groups. I go my own way. I don't huddle up in an isolated cabin writing a manifesto, or concoct plans to vent my inner rage on the general public.
DU has a "loner's group." Not much happens there, because, lol, we're loners. Check us out.
An intoverted aspie...I know that there are people who probably aren't comfortable with you. That doesn't have anything to do, of course, with your rights.
The 2nd amendment: do you want to "bear arms?" Or do you just want to establish your rights as equal to everyone else's?
ZM90
(706 posts)a gun. I am just sick of the demonization of people that are like me and being seen as 'the problem.'
LWolf
(46,179 posts)and you should have them.
There are so many in our history, and in current America, that have wanted, that still want, the same.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Just because some would be safe with a gun, not all would be. It has to be a bit more in depth then just a broad diagnosis.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)It is illogical to expand that to "So, very clearly, there are people who think those with Asperger's should not bear arms. "
Nitpicking introvert here who has been annoyed about the poor logic associated with trying to figure out how to prevent mass shootings.
I don't have an answer either.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Those people are people. I did not suggest that it was any certain % of people.
It certainly wouldn't follow that there aren't any people who think those with Asperger's should not bear arms.
Response to ZM90 (Original post)
ZM90 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)probably are safer without anything as 'spur-of-the moment' lethal as a gun.
ZM90
(706 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts) 
valerief
(53,235 posts)Welcome to my Forever Ignored list.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)please add me to your 'Forever List', Thank you.
ZM90
(706 posts)being so willing to treat people that are like me as being evil, or psychotic for being a Aspie or introvert or weird or socially awkward or what have you.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)You really need to stop and think before you hit the "POST" button.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts) 840high
(17,196 posts)
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)
kcr
(15,315 posts)Because wow, did you ever completely miss the point the OP was making. I hope this was a case of someone hadn't had their coffee yet, or misplaced the reading glasses, or computer monitor glitch.
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)So...what else would you be quick to deny this man just because he seems "different" from everyone else? Is it okay to automatically discriminate against someone who doesn't fit the societal mold?
This goes beyond guns.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Cuz the point was to promote guns in an underhanded way.
flobee1
(870 posts)More extensive than the CC course, more extensive than a drivers ed course. A gun owner needs to prove that they are responsible enough, and competent enough to own a gun. At the time of purchase, that gun is also tied to the owner and is the owners responsibility that it is safe and secure. If it is stolen, the owner must immediately report that it has been stolen. Failure to report a stolen gun, and the owner is liable for whatever crime is committed using that gun. If the owner wants to sell his gun, it must take place at a dmv style department. The buyer must show proof that he has taken the training, passed a backround check, and pay a licence fee in order for the transfer to take place. The owner must have the gun inspected to ensure it functions correctly. Owners must renew their licence every 4 years, so that they can show that they are still capable of owning a gun.
If they can have a database of every driver in america, they can have one for guns.
Violations of any of these rules need to have swift and harsh punishments, lifetime punishments.
Gun ownership is a great, awesome responsibility. A car can be used as a weapon, but a gun IS a weapon. It has no other use. It is used to kill whatever is in front of it. Just like not everyone should be driving, not everyone should own a gun. If someone cannot jump through all these hoops, or deal with all the red tape, or prove that they can handle a gun, they dont get a gun.
ZM90
(706 posts)It just got me thinking, and all these thoights came to me suddenly, i just wanted to get it all down.
Im very add, and if i dont get it down somewhere, its gone forever 
ZM90
(706 posts)JanMichael
(24,881 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)no one will need them to defend themselves, as others won't have them either.
Like in Australia, where criminals may have guns, but they use them against each other - and they can be arrested for simply having them, not the case in the US.
IMO it's hysterically paranoid to believe you need a gun to protect yourself, unless you live in a very high crime area. And it could still be enforced.
We have no way of knowing who is going to flip and do a mass shooting. Focusing on that unlikely prediction (the latest shooter had no record) is not going to work. We need to simply focus on having fewer guns about, ready to be picked up easily by anyone, lest one of them be a crazy mass shooter.
ZM90
(706 posts)blamed or demonized and I am saying something about it to let DU know that people like me.
The aspies...
The introverts...
The weird ones....
The socially awkward....
The young....
most of us are not mass murders.
ryan_cats
(2,061 posts)...no one will need them to defend themselves, as others won't have them either.
As God is my witness, I'll never be hungry again and I also thought turkeys could fly.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)There will be an instant black market. Prohibition has never worked here.
librechik
(30,674 posts)you don't have an individual right to bear arms, IMO.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)
Warpy
(111,243 posts)If I lived closer to where the bears sleep, I'd probably own a shotgun. Here in the city, there's no way I'd own any kind of a gun. Somebody might take it away from me and shoot me with it.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I read these threads and they make me sad and SMH. I think the mindset of a killer is rare and people need to stop believing 'it could be them too'. Wrong. SO wrong.
ZM90
(706 posts)of people like me as 'the problem' by some.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Think about it. I too have certain issues, but the mindset of a cold blooded killer is not even close to my problems nor 99.9% of the people in America imo.
Just ignore them, I have all my life.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Before long we're going to have a moral panic that really wrecks some innocent lives.
The NRA keeps trotting out the "mental illness" talking points every time there's a shooting to deflect from the fact that these shootings are made possible because guns are so easily available.
What I'm afraid of is that people will start going after people who dress goth, or who play Dungeons and Dragons, or act a little weird, say because of Aspergers, and they'll hound these people for no reason at all, make their lives hell.
But the fact is that most people with genuine mental illness are not violent. Same with people with Aspergers and such.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/mass-shootings-are-not-about-mental-illness/
“If we were able to magically cure schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression, that would be wonderful, but overall violence would go down by only about four percent,” Dr. Jeffrey Swanson, a professor of psychiatry at Duke, told ProPublica last year. He notes a 2001 study of mass shooters that found three out of four had no psychiatric history.
So what works? The current research suggests getting rid of the guns. For everyone. Or at least regulating the fuck out of them.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/heres-what-public-health-researchers-want-you-to-know-about-gun-violence/
Q: If the US committed to ending mass shootings, what does research suggest would be the best strategy?
Sandro Galea: Control over availability of weapons, as has been done in countries like Australia, has been shown to work.
Ziming Xuan: The best and longest-lasting approach involves comprehensive policy changes. We must also shift the community norms to be more consistent with the public health nature of this problem.
Q: Oregon – where Thursday’s shootings took place – is one of seven states that allow guns on college campuses. What impact will ‘campus carry’ laws have on gun violence?
Sandro Galea: Wider availability of firearms is associated with more firearm related injury. Allowing guns on campus is the wrong strategy towards reducing firearm injury.
Ziming Xuan: Published research has shown that states with weak laws and more guns are associated with more gun violence in the forms of suicide, homicides, and other injuries and accidents.
But nooooooooo, gun regulation gets in the way of the billions of dollars of profits promoted by the National Rifle Industry Association. Can't have that. Gotta manipulate the rubes into thinking that weapons will protect your freedom, somehow... Maybe if we get the rubes to blame the crazies!
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)The NRA should be barred or dismantled, they don't do anything positive for Americans except shill and spread fear for more gun sales.
The NRA did rise hand in hand with the KKK. Both useless hate groups. Our society would be a nicer, better place without them.
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)But that's way too easy to do with neurodiversities like Asperger's that are still so misunderstood.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)according to Federal law you have been taken before a judge or equivalent legal authority to render a judgement and been proven to be "mentally defective" OR been involuntarily committed to a mental institution (See question 11f) : https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download
Ignore the rather disgusting answers from the uninformed and bias posters are perfectly willing to sacrifice other people's Constitutional rights because of their emotional and irrational fear of an inanimate object.
As a reminder for those who don't know, Asperger's and Autism are not a psychological mental illness, but rather a physical illnes.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Ask yourself what you want to do with a gun. Civilized countries allow the possession of certain types of firearms for hunting and sport, while banning handguns and other weapons designed for killing large numbers of people. That is where we need to go.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Most people I know are saying we need to do more to keep guns out of the hands of people with serious mental illnesses.
Rex
(65,616 posts)had serious mental issues in the first place! We need to look at the obvious and not create extra issues that are really not related.
Wanting to murder someone can be pawned off to extreme hatred, but the truth is that the person has 'flipped' and/or has a serious mental issue.
That should be understood by all intelligent people.
IMO.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
Crunchy Frog
(26,579 posts)I have lifelong mental health issues, and there is a demonization of the "mentally ill", and much talk about focusing on them as the "problem", rather than focusing on guns. And this is on the "progressive" DU as well as society at large.
I have absolutely no interest in owning a firearm whatsoever, but I also have no wish to be singled out for loss of rights, or made into a scapegoat.
The fact is that our country is saturated with firearms, and our culture is fixated on guns, and shootings, both large and small scale, are a natural consequence. The focusing of attention on people with asperger's or "mental illness" is simply a way for our gun fixated society to avoid facing the real issues and real causes of excessive gun violence.
The fact is that there is no way to pick out the people in advance who are most likely to engage in this type of violence, at least not without depriving vast numbers of ordinary, harmless people of their rights and freedoms (and even then, many dangerous people would still get overlooked). That's not going to stop people from trying, as long as there is a refusal to deal with the real issues.
Throd
(7,208 posts)ZM90
(706 posts)I am simply bringing up a issue I have noticed in regards to people that are young have Asperger's, socially awkward, introverts, ect being profiled as insane mass murders whenever the vast majority of us are good innocent people.
Along with everybody else.
If it were up to me, we would repeal the 2nd Amendment and make gun ownership a privilege, not a right.
But, it will never happen, so.... go out there and buy yourself an arsenal! It's your right!
Faux pas
(14,665 posts)she and her husband have guns. Neither one of them has shot anyone.
I resent the tendency of the media and populations in general to immediately search for evidence of some kind of behavioral difference that sets the people who kill apart.
The truth is that our average neighbor, student, family member, etc who has anger, fear, and impulse issues not related to any behavioral or psychiatric diagnosis could be dangerous.
I understand why it is hard to believe that a "sane" person could commit such acts, but it is difficult to understand a lot of ordinary behaviors that are not related to any diagnosable behavioral differences.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)I don't think anyone supported the idea. To answer your question, no. No demonization from me.
KentuckyWoman
(6,679 posts)You may feel awkward but from the outside people are all sorts of different. We all filter socially through our own personalities and quirks, through our culture, through our family upbringing, etc etc etc. EVERYONE feels uncomfortable in some social situation or another. Some more than others.
We are all trying to figure out how to "relate" to the people around us. You have to work at it a bit more than most because of the asperger's but that doesn't make you weird.
Me? I can't ride a bike. I've tried and tried. Always fall over to the left. Can't walk on the curb or a balance beam for the same reason. And god help me if I have to climb stairs at are open at the bottom or take escalators. I have to hang on for dear life and take one step at a time to keep from falling.
So...... we all have something.
ZM90
(706 posts)
romanic
(2,841 posts)
Turbineguy
(37,317 posts)But you've already asked the most important question: why do I want a gun? When I was buying a pistol there was a policeman in the store. He told me the average gun fight lasts 3.5 seconds. Was I the Waco Kid?
The key to success for the NRA is to keep people from asking themselves a rational question first. The Oregon shooter should have spent some of his money on counseling instead.
But not because you're socially awkward Asperger's man. No one should own guns. Any one of us could fly off the rails and shoot up a mall.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)I think it is a right best left unexercised.
Nobody needs a gun unless they are living way out in the woods and need to hunt to eat.
pnwmom
(108,975 posts)People with autism are just as unique as people everywhere.
And military-style weapons shouldn't be available to any civilians. We should reinstate the ban on assault weapons Congress allowed to expire.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Upon background review, I'd also include racism, too many guns, low IQ, blackouts, etc.
dembotoz
(16,799 posts)has nothing to do with you
and would the gop better fund mental health care?????
that is the funniest thing about this whole thing
like that would happen
shooting happens....gop and nra deflect attention....nothing happens
Just like everyone else.
forsaken mortal
(112 posts)Its interesting watching DU adopt the language of dividing males up into alphas, betas, and gamma, watching a site that should be about social justice wanting to go on witch hunts against introverted males, so-called "losers", etc. I thought this place would be above all of that, that it would realize that a lot of these people (most of whom have committed no crimes) suffer from marginalization, social-anxiety disorders, etc. There's nothing wrong with you. Being an introvert or an Aspie doesn't make you dangerous or a criminal. For those who said in other posts that introverted "loser males" should be profiled, maybe you should also profile the glib, extroverted ones since serial killers often fit that profile. Let's get an appropriate label and judgment attached to everyone while we're busy dehumanizing the human race.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)There is something wrong with them because they are not like us 
Does your square peg fit into their round hole? Being a loser is only a step in being your own winner.
I say to you also without hesitation, our so called human race has gotten to this point by subjecting and or killing others they were unable to control or understand. It's in the genetics. So don't feel threatened, just learn to go around them 
Response to ZM90 (Original post)
Post removed
Crunchy Frog
(26,579 posts)Jappleseed
(93 posts)To support guns.
Crunchy Frog
(26,579 posts)It's the gun nutters who are stigmatizing and scapegoating people with asd and "mental illness" in order to deflect attention from the fact that guns are the real issue.
Somebody with Asperger's says that he doesn't want to be demonized and scapegoated for something that the gun nutters are responsible for, and you think it's about "supporting guns". Yeah, really nice reading comprehension there. 
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Especially if you've ever taken "meds".
Because despite the fact that other nations with this problem mitigated it by doing the obvious: restricting access to guns, what we should do is absolutely anything else, no matter how hurtful discriminatory and depraved. Because our fucking gunz are precious.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)is the question-
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)straight up pot-stirring.
Either way I don't think that was serious.
Other than that, though, personally I know fuck all why anyone thinks they want or "need" a gun. I'm not super hung up on legislating them (Federally, it's a losing proposition; no matter what anyone says, if we couldn't even get background checks through after Newtown, nothing is EVER going to change on that front) although they personally give me the skeevies. I can defend myself perfectly fine without one, I have no desire to wander around in the woods looking for animals to kill, and if I need to work on my hand-eye coordination I have an XBOX.
My completely unsolicited advice to you is, there are way better hobbies than shiny metal toys designed to kill people.
kcr
(15,315 posts)Guns are things, no different than any other things that are mass produced and marketed. The fact that they are codified in such a manner is absurd. That such a thing is a lethal weapon a travesty. Any other product equally as dangerous is heavily regulated if not outright banned.
I think those who demonize you do so to advance their agenda. It's easier than admitting that guns are the problem.
frizzled
(509 posts)The Constitution is supposed to be to "insure domestic Tranquility", clearly guns are violating that.
Marr
(20,317 posts)At present, you'd have to be deemed 'mentally defective' by a court of law. The bar is way too high.
We need more of a mental health infrastructure to deal with diagnosing problems, providing medication if need be, and yes, disallowing the purchase of firearms, should an professional deem you a risk.
Crunchy Frog
(26,579 posts)Of mandatory psychiatric examinations and forced treatments for those deemed "in need" so that we can preserve our most fundamental liberties.
branford
(4,462 posts)and court victories seeking to assist and normalize those suffering from mental illness and encouraging them to seek treatment.
Crunchy Frog
(26,579 posts)But, such a system does seem to be what some people are advocating.
branford
(4,462 posts)likely because such suggestions are starting to become somewhat common from both sides of the firearm debate.
I find it tragic that hard fought, long-time, progressive ideals appear to be jettisoned when the topic concerns firearms
What's most depressing is that the vast majority of those suffering mental illness are not in any way violent, and are actually more likely than others to suffer from criminality.
Marr
(20,317 posts)I'm a little inclined towards intrusiveness at the moment. My little brother was shot in the face and killed last week by a total stranger, a man with a history of both violence and diagnosed mental problems, who was nonetheless able to purchase a shotgun and go on a nice little shooting spree in my hometown.
You can talk about your 'fundamental liberty' to have a fucking toy all you like. What we have in this country isn't working at all. We either need to make firearms a hell of a lot harder to get for everyone, or we need some more aggressive means of keeping them out of the hands of people like that.
Crunchy Frog
(26,579 posts)I'm also sorry about your brother, and I'm on the side of gun control, and have no guns, so not concerned about any of my "toys".
As long as firearms are so easily accessible, disturbed people who want to kill are going to be able to get their hands on them. No amount of psychiatric intrusiveness is going to change that.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)(or whatever or however you might describe the condition) is the ability to eventually out think that place you are stuck in. I might be somewhere in that same boat but the best thing i always realize is that no matter what (and i say, no matter what) they will never think like you. Beside being normal would be so boring and sticking around, playing matador and figuring out what they are going to do before they do it is much more fun. Being an introvert isn't that helpful for us kind of folks either, it might make for a smaller outlay to protect but it will not make you feel better at the end of day. Get out, see the world, who cares what they think and even if they do gawk at you there is still nothing they can do to change you, you are the only one who can do that.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)it is fair to deny anyone the ability to protect themselves. And anyone has the ability to snap at any moment so no one can predict who will shoot someone.
I would love to outlaw handguns all together (even for most police officers). Let those that need protection at home or have a need to hunt, do it with rifles like our forefathers did.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)I forfeit my right to bear arms because I have no real need to do so. If I hunted, I would retake that right. If I had an articulable and specific need to bear one for self-defense, I'd do so. If I was in the military or worked in a profession prone to armed robbery, I'd have a gun.
I don't think we have a Constitutional right to play with guns for target practice or to feel like John Wayne. I don't think we have a right to bear arms in public except under extremely limited conditions. I don't think your right to bear arms trumps my right to life or liberty.
Finally, I don't think the second amendment is an absolute right, just as none of our Constitutional rights are absolute. If the State can articulate a narrowly proscribed restriction that can be shown to outweigh the consequences of taking away that right, the law should be upheld.
To specifically address your question, being introverted can be one sign of a disturbed individual. It certainly shouldn't be enough to deny the right to bear arms in itself, but it is one indication of many. If you don't exhibit any other signs, or few, then I doubt any US government would try to take your right away from you. I would certainly stand up for your right under those conditions, if others had that right.
