Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

230338Re: [7x10minilathe] OT: It happens again and it caused by mental illness

Expand Messages
  • Ryan Hodges
    Jun 9, 2014
    • 0 Attachment
      Good evening Ian.

      Yes sir, we agree there (unfortunately) have to be some restrictions.  As you point out we can't count on people to "self police".  As cliche as it sounds, if laws worked we wouldn't need police.  Unfortunately, as we both know... people breaks laws.

      --------------------

      How do we implement a system that would prevent a six year old, or a person convicted of violent crime, or a person with some mental issues, going in to a shop and buying a firearm and ammunition?

      We could rely on everyone using common sense - but we all have differing ideas of what is sensible.

      We could have a voluntary "code of conduct" - but the very people we think should not have firearms are the ones most likely to ignore a code (small children, criminals, people unable to rationalize)

      I think the law (in some form) is the only vehicle available to implement a framework of sensible and reasonable restrictions.

      Do you agree or can you see any other way?

      The system / law, of restrictions is already in place and administered by the FBI through it's NICS.  http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics  It's designed to keep firearms out of the hands of the underage, criminals, people with mental issues, etc.  "...call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible to make a purchase."

      It isn't like you just walk in, pick out a gun, pay and leave. 

      So I'd like ask you how you go about buying a gun from a store there?  I'm guessing you have a very similar system in place?  You said below you blame "easy access".  It doesn't seem that easy to me so I'd like to know what you have to do.  Is it less or more difficult?

      Have a good day.

      Ryan





      -----Original Message-----
      From: Ian Newman ian_new@... [7x10minilathe] <7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com>
      To: 7x10minilathe <7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Sat, Jun 7, 2014 1:41 pm
      Subject: Re: [7x10minilathe] OT: It happens again and it caused by mental illness

       
      Hi Ryan,

      I replied to your last post about a week ago, but I see that my response has not appeared on the group or turned up in my in-box.  Having waited a week I have given up hope that the message will ever arrive so I'm re-writing it - apologies for the delay.

      I'm sorry if my use of the term "dance around" came over badly - I agree that you answered the points openly and honestly.  It was the "yes, but ...." approach that I was referring to.  I assure you that I'm not trying to trick you in to making statements that get twisted round and used against you.  I accept that in the course of discussion it is not unreasonable to expect people to change, modify or rescind statements - please feel free to modify any comments at a later date (I'm sure you will extend the same courtesy to me).

      To recap:

      We agree that some (particularly extreme) examples of action are not sensible, and we agree that certain restrictions would be wise.

      We both stated earlier that we accepted that we had differing views on laws associated with fire arms and would never be able to agree with each other in this area.

      So somewhere between the two sentences above, our views start to diverge - I am genuinely interested in exploring that point, and hope you will continue to put forward your views for discussion.


      So how do we implement a system that helps to prevent the sort of foolishness that I outlined:

      How do we implement a system that would prevent a six year old, or a person convicted of violent crime, or a person with some mental issues, going in to a shop and buying a firearm and ammunition?

      We could rely on everyone using common sense - but we all have differing ideas of what is sensible.

      We could have a voluntary "code of conduct" - but the very people we think should not have firearms are the ones most likely to ignore a code (small children, criminals, people unable to rationalize)

      I think the law (in some form) is the only vehicle available to implement a framework of sensible and reasonable restrictions.

      Do you agree or can you see any other way?


      All the best,
      Ian




      From: "Ryan Hodges ifly172@... [7x10minilathe]" <7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com>
      To: 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Monday, 2 June 2014, 5:26
      Subject: Re: [7x10minilathe] OT: It happens again and it caused by mental illness

       
      Good evening Ian.

      I find it interesting that you feel I danced around your questions and then called them carefully contrived.  I feel I answered your questions extremely directly and those are my honest opinions on what needs fixed with the specific driving laws you asked about.  I could easily go on to expand on my answers as to why I feel they would increase safety if you would like sometime.  I just returned home from driving 7 1/2 hours and 400 miles to and from a graduation party and I'm exhausted so I'll leave that for another time for now though.

      I'll address your questions below...



       
      Hi Ryan,

      In your reply you dance around the examples I gave (you approve of speed ranges rather than speed limits, you know of a 10 year old racing driver so a hesitant to approve of strict age restrictions, etc, etc) but I think you understand the point I am making, although you do not like the idea of admitting it.

      Eventually you agree that some form of restriction in a beneficial thing (although I notice that you are careful to avoid using the "S" word (safety) except to claim that some of the restrictions I mention <SNIP> are an absolute disaster and truly do not address driving or road safety in the slightest </SNIP>)

      So now change cars for guns.  I am interested in the concepts rather than the detail, so I will avoid using words such as "law" "restriction" "control" "ban" etc, etc, etc.
      Do you believe that some form of code applied to gun possession is conducive to general safety - for example:

      Do you think a 6 year old child should be allowed to go in to a shop and buy a hand gun and ammunition?

      I'm fairly sure that in this country a person has to be 21 to purchase a gun.  Ok, Google says 18 to buy a rifle or shotgun, 21 for a hand gun.  Directly to answer, yes I think 6 is too young.

      Do you think a person convicted of violent crime should be allowed to possess a gun?

      Conceptually, no, violent criminals should not be allowed to possess a gun and again I don't think they are allowed. 

      Or do you think that the absence of guidelines would make the community a safer place?

        No sir.

      I'm going to guess we're pretty much in agreement on these?

      Have a good day
      Ryan

      On 30 May 2014, at 07:01, "Ryan Hodges ifly172@... [7x10minilathe]" &l t;7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

       
      Hi Ian.

      Yes, the ranting and raving doesn't get anywhere.  A discussion is always better for the exchange of views. So on that note,


      "I agree with you that a person with a gun has the potential to misuse or mishandle the weapon."

      I also agree that a person has the potential to misuse the object.  An object only becomes a weapon when it is used against another person, animal, etc.  Any object used in such a manner is a weapon.  Guns are used for games, the Olympics, recreation, etc and at no point would be a weapon.  Knives are used to carve wood, eat, etc and again at no point would be considered a weapon.  The same type of statements can be made of cars... racing, traveling.

      Any of these objects can also be used as a weapon.  Shootings, stabbings, and driving a car into a crowd of people.

      Moving on...

      De-restrict car ownership?

      There is no restriction on car ownership.  Find one you want, take the owner cash and drive away.  It's personal property and as such you're free to buy / sell it.

      Remove the requirement to pass a driving test?

      No, I would not.  If you want to get right down to it, I would make it much harder to pass.  I live in an area where we can get heavy rain in the summer and heavy snow in the winter.  If it was up to me you would not get driving privileges in those conditions until you demonstrated the ability to drive in those weather conditions.  Such as you could not drive in / on snow until you have demonstrated that you are capable.

      Allow 10 year olds to drive on the roads?

      How about 50 year olds?  60, 70, 80?  I've known some great 12 year old local race car drivers that I'd feel a whole lot more comfortable on the roads with than the 60 something woman who almost hit me on the way home from work when she just changed lanes and didn't, as far as I could tell, even bother to look.  And that happens more often than I like to think about.  It's always been an older driver, not younger.  I think they've been doing it so long they take it for granted and do not give driving the attention it demands.  The short version is:  It depends on the person.

      Speed restrictions? 

      There needs to be a speed range, not just an upper limit.  Minimum 65, maximum 75 for example.  There's nothing that's more dangerous than someone traveling along at 50 or 55 when the rest of traffic is going 70 or more.  On multiple lane roads I'd also enforce lane restrictions.  Lets say a three lane road.  If you're traveling at the minimum speed you must be in the right hand lane.  Traffic in the low to middle of the speed range could use the middle lane to pass then must move back to the right lane.  If you are in the middle to maximum you could travel in middle and use the left to pass then you have to move back to the middle.  The left lane could then be for traveling at the maximum speed.  So yes, I am in favor of removing pure speed restrictions and enacting speed ranges.


      Remove the requirement to obey road signs and road markings?

      No, it's ignoring the "rules of the road" that cause crashes.  It was hammered into me... There is no such thing as an accident.  Somebody did something wrong and caused a crash.  There's nothing accidental about it.

      As you can see I'm strongly in favor of modifying the driving laws.  I would have a hard time drawing direct comparisons between them as I think some of them are an absolute disaster and truly do not address driving or road safety in the slightest.  But,  I think I know what you're asking but I want to be clear before I answer...  What is my stance on requiring the same type of training to own a gun as drive a car?

      Have a good day.

      Ryan

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Ian Newman ian_new@... [7x10minilathe] <7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com>
      To: 7x10minilathe <7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thu, May 29, 2014 6:12 pm
      Subject: Re: [7x10minilathe] OT: It happens again and it caused by mental illness

       
      Hi Ryan,

      No problem with the misunderstanding - everyone get things mixed up from time to time, and it is interesting to have a sensible, rational response, rather than the screaming and ranting that so often surfaces when these topics are discussed.  I genuinely value and appreciate your views even though (as you correctly point out) our differing cultural backgrounds make it inevitable that we will always fail to understand each others view point.

      I think we do agree - I cannot see anyone <SNIP> blaming guns for shootings, cars for crashes, etc. </SNIP> in our discussions.

      I agree with you that a person with a gun has the potential to misuse or mishandle the weapon.

      You made the analogy with cars and I think it is a very valid comparison, so do you believe it would be a good plan to:

      De-restrict car ownership? 
      Remove the requirement to pass a driving test? 
      Allow 10 year olds to drive on the roads? 
      Remove speed restrictions?
      Remove the requirement to obey road signs and road markings?



      or do you think the above moves would make the roads a more dangerous place and increase loss of life?

      I am interested in whether you support the removal of road traffic restrictions and laws, and if you do not, how you justify the different approach to gun safety and road safety.

      All the best,
      Ian



      On 29 May 2014, at 16:39, "Ryan Hodges ifly172@... [7x10minilathe]" <7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

       

      Morning Ian.

      I misunderstood what you were saying.  Apologizes for that.  I now understand what you are saying. 


      Either way we're never going to agree on this Ian.  Just because an object is easy to obtain doesn't take the responsibility off the one and only  thing that can do something with it, a person.

      Let me make this clear:   I don't care what US, UK or Russian law regarding guns is.  Maybe I haven't been making that clear all along. 

      I'm talking about blaming guns for shootings, cars for crashes, etc.  I'm tired of it.  People stab, people shoot, people crash and that is all there is to it.  Objects do not act without a person.


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Ian Newman ian_new@... [7x10minilathe] <7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com
      To: 7x10minilathe <7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thu, May 29, 2014 4:10 am
      Subject: Re: [7x10minilathe] OT: It happens again and it caused by mental illness

       
      Hi Ryan,

      You seem to contradict yourself when giving your interpretation of my comments:

      <SNIP>
      You admit that an object is only a problem in the hands of a person then go on to say "The problem is easy access to the gun."  You want to blame an object. 
      </SNIP>

       You quote me correctly - I stated the problem is "easy access to the gun" - I do not blame the gun, I blame easy access. Having repeated my quote blaming the ease of access to guns as the problem you then make the totally untrue allegation that I "want to blame the object". I am sure that this is a simple typing error on your part and not a deliberate attempt to make it appear that I was blaming "the gun" when you previously agreed that I was not blaming an object in any way.

      I repeat - I do not blame the gun, I blame easy access to guns as the root of the gun problem in the USA.

      I repeat - legislation in the UK is not aimed at restricting access to guns, but to ensure that guns are kept securely and to make it hard for guns to fall in to the "wrong hands" (be it criminal, child, unstable person, etc)

      You make a very valid comparison with road traffic accidents.  To help reduce and prevent road traffic injuries and deaths the USA (like the UK) has a series of laws in place - you need to be registered to drive a car, you have to pass a test to drive a car, if you behave in a silly or dangerous way, you can lose your (legal) access to drive.  It is a shame that some Americans will not take gun safety as seriously as they take road safety.

      Finally - the IRA (the major terrorist organisation which murdered over 1800 UK citizens in the period 1969 to 2001) had two major sources of supply - Libya and the USA - these two countries being the easiest places in the world for terrorists to systematically buy large quantities of arms and ammunition.

      All the best,
      Ian


      On 28 Ma y 2014, at 22:58, "Ryan Hodges ifly172@... [7x10minilathe]" <7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

       
      Hi Ian.

      We're going to have to agree to disagree or this will just go around and around

      You admit that an object is only a problem in the hands of a person then go on to say "
      The problem is easy access to the gun."  You want to blame an object.  I blame the person, period.  Objects do nothing unless acted on by a person.  I cannot think of any objects that act on their own.  The recent stabbings in a Pittsburgh, PA area school where a student stabbed 20+ people weren't carried out by a knife, they were committed by a person.  When a family member of mine was run over on his motorcycle by a semi, it was the driver who hit him, not the truck.  There are many more but I'm sure you get the point.

      People and their actions, not objects, are the problem.  I will continue to place the blame firmly were it belongs.  On people, not objects.

      On that note, this is my last reply to this topic.  Have a good day Ian.

      Ryan

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Ian Newman ian_new@... [7x10minilathe] <7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com>
      To: 7x10minilathe <7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Wed, May 28, 2014 3:44 am
      Subject: Re: [7x10minilathe] OT: It happens again and it caused by mental illness

       
      Hi Ryan,

      As you point out, the inanimate object is only a problem when you allow it to come into the hands of a person - an angry person standing two feet away may punch you, an angry person twenty feet away may shout at you, an angry person twenty feet away with a gun may kill you.

      The problem is easy access to the gun.

      I know that the USA cannot hope to solve the extraordinarily high gun crime and gun death rate that the country has, but it amazes me the lengths that some Americans will go to in order to avoid admitting that the real issue is easy access to guns.

      Gun legislation works in the UK but most of the conditions that we apply and consider common sense seem to be unacceptable to a particular type of American (the ones with no common sense?)

      The law in the UK is less about ownership of a gun and more concerned with ensuring guns a re kept safely and responsibly.

      There are over 2 million legally owned firearms in the UK (3.4 guns per 100 people).

      All the best,
      Ian




    • Show all 93 messages in this topic