Take guns away from those who are potentially violent

You forgot these:

 

Leeches, they come in all forms, the two legged kind being the biggest leeches.

 

Australia was founded as being a big prison and the inmates should never be allowed to own guns.

 

I love ad Homs they always indicate I am winning

 

Good one.

 

Its quite easy to believe that problems have solutions. It's harder to understand that attempted solutions have consequences.

Cruz is not some new phenomenon. Solutions to the problems he poses have already been implemented. What were the consequences of those solutions? Are they even knowable? Can we know how many people have the potential to commit a violent act, but were prevented from doing so by some societal policy? Can we know how many violent acts were committed as a result of that policy?

It's simply not falsifiable that the need to change something actually has a positive effect when we're so hyper focused on such a small sample of data.

 

Nice dodge

 

Your national bird is the emu. They can't fly and eat plants and insects.

 

What dodge? I disagree with your premise that a change in criteria would be beneficial, or even prudent. I stated why.

 

That's just nonsense. Criminals would just name police who arrested them and all police would be disarmed.

 

Here's a perspective that most people probably haven't thought of before:
Don't people have a right to be potentially violent? I mean, so long as it is within the confines of the law?
And not just that, but shouldn't people have the right to commit minor acts of violence without having their rights permanently taken away from them for the rest of their lives? I know people normally don't consider something that is breaking the law a right but in one sense it is. I mean, you will get punished for it, but the degree and type of punishment should be appropriate to what the act actually was.

Now apparently we are talking about arbitrarily taking any rights we want to from an individual just because they broke the law. People need to be on guard about this because it's actually a slippery slope people don't think about. People who break the law need their rights protected just like everyone else. In some cases it can even turn into a giant dragnet where the ones running the show want people to break the law so their rights can conveniently be removed. Then they'll start passing laws designed to try to make people run afoul of them. It's happened before, in history, and in American history.

Well anyway, going back, let me just give one example of the type of low level violence someone might commit. Let's look at a relationship between two people living closely together in a domestic situation. They've been with each other for several years. There's an argument, passionate feelings get aroused, there is screaming and cruel words. One of them slaps the other across the face. Now, I am not saying this is proper conduct, but neither is it all that unusual. Does the offender in this situation deserve to automatically have their rights taken away based on some inferred notion that they might be dangerous now? Look, I don't have a problem if you arrest them, give a little punishment for what they did to disincentive them from treating their partner that way, that's not what I'm talking about here. Some rights could be taken away. But what kind of rights (and how long) that's the issue here.

The reason some people are so quick to want to jump to take away rights is because they actually view those rights as a privilege rather than a right. So any of the slightest causes will do, in their mind.

 

We don't even have a criteria to determine a guy like Steven paddock's motive. What makes you think we can develop one that predicts it?

Could you have predicted the Texas bomber's behavior? Could you have predicted Albert Wong's?

 

I have a better idea: once five people say you're a troll, you lose your internet access.

 

My point exactly

People calling for locking up people before they become mass shooters have no criteria on which to judge

 

Potentially violent maybe

Actually violent??

No no one has that "right"

 

But they can kick down **** house doors!!! Lols!

 

I don't think you understood the thesis of my post properly.

Someone who committed no crime has as much right not to be punished as someone else who committed only a minor crime has a right not be given a punishment twice as bad as they deserve.

If I put it in those terms, does that make sense?

Even people who broke the law and may have done something bad still have rights. Doing something bad doesn't automatically take away all of your rights.
A fundamental pivot of justice should be that the taking away of rights should be entirely correlated to the actual act.

And not some perceived notions of what that person might do in the future.

Even a murderer, I would argue, has the right not to be tortured to death (unless possibly if they did the same to their victim). You see the direction of what I am saying?

So this is what I would propose. If someone does something bad that deserves 6 years in prison, and they only spend 4 years in prison, but then they break the law and have a gun, which is prohibited to them because they committed a crime in the past, whereas for a normal person it would not be prohibited, then they should only have to serve the remainder of the 2 years, which they actually deserve for committing the actual crime. But now suppose you wanted to punish this person with 3 years, hypothetically. Would that be justice? How would it be justice? I don't see it.
Now you would want to be punishing them more than they actually deserve. No longer is it about justice and moral appropriateness in that case, your argument has turned into one of pure utilitarianism. (which of course is debatable)

 

Sure we do, women have the right to use violence against someone trying to rape them...

 

Hold their head down and they aren't going to kick anything... Easy peasy.

Mike Rowe taught me how....

 

Not against mass shooters, but we do happen to have the highest rate of rape in the OECD, while women are prohibited from carrying even mace.

I'd also point out that the Czechs have an even lower gun homicide rate than us, despite shall issue concealed carry of handguns.

 

perhaps we should go the other way. If you want a gun you should have to get ten people to sign and take legal responsibility for how you will do with it. So if you go off your nut and plug a whole bunch of people we can make lawsuits against them for being so wrong.

I bet that solves a lot of these gun ownership problems. All of a sudden people might care who they are giving guns to.

 

Yeah but those Emu’s kicked their butts. Not kidding:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War

 

The problem is defining violent. I'm 100% against mind-reading people being able to take away guns. Let's stick to violent actions as determined by a court of law taking away rights.

 

Cruz slipped through the cracks. He did numerous violent actions that should have resulted in arrest, yet was never arrested. My guess is that he was such a wimpy little guy that the cops didn't take it seriously.