Petition to deport Piers Morgan hits 31,400

[eternal cynic]

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, it's just as much of a valid guess as mental illness. My conclusions were based on the diagnosis of psychologists.
"Following their January 1998 arrest for theft, both youths had computer access restricted. Block believes that their personal anger, which was initially projected into video games, was now unleashed into the real world. In addition, the restriction of their computer access opened up substantial amounts of idle time that would have otherwise gone towards their online activities. Block said Harris and Klebold increasingly used this free time to express their anger, with their antisocial tendencies likewise increasing. This, in turn, generated further restrictions. Ultimately, after the 1998 arrest and their being banned from personal computer access for approximately one month, the two teens became homicidal and began documenting plans to attack the school. Block writes that the plan to attack the school first appears in Klebold's writings, and that Klebold may have considered using a different partner-in-crime than Harris. This person's name was redacted from Klebold's journal by police."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_S...

Try another source other than Wiki. Did you know anyone can create or modify a Wiki entry?

Video games will not impact someone without mental defect.

[milwaukee69]

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
Try another source other than Wiki. Did you know anyone can create or modify a Wiki entry?
Video games will not impact someone without mental defect.

Lol...if you look at the bottom of the paragraph I cited, there's a citation for Jerald Block, Lessons From Columbine: Virtual and Real Rage, American Journal of Forensic Psychiatry. July 2007.

Yeah, anyone can.

[eternal cynic]

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>
Lol...if you look at the bottom of the paragraph I cited, there's a citation for Jerald Block, Lessons From Columbine: Virtual and Real Rage, American Journal of Forensic Psychiatry. July 2007.
Yeah, anyone can.

Did you verify? I've present you links which counter what you claim.

Anyone that believes video games will alter the behavior of a normal person probably has issues themselves.

Would that be anything like the family that blamed Beavis and Butthead for their son burning down their home?

[milwaukee69]

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you verify? I've present you links which counter what you claim.
Anyone that believes video games will alter the behavior of a normal person probably has issues themselves.
Would that be anything like the family that blamed Beavis and Butthead for their son burning down their home?

Yes.

Read the report. You or I may not have a problem separating reality from a video game, but kids?

I'm not buying into the video game theory either.

[eternal cynic]

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes.
Read the report. You or I may not have a problem separating reality from a video game, but kids?
I'm not buying into the video game theory either.

I don’t believe you give young people enough credit. How old was the youngest shooter? They should know the difference between reality and fantasy if they’re mentally stable.

I’ve read many reports on the subject. Some of them were laughable.

[milwaukee69]

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
They should know the difference between reality and fantasy if they’re mentally stable.

But I thought they both had a mental illnesses? Not a fair statement, I won't bait you like that, but I do believe that what these people have is not necessarily a mental illness, but a mental episode. Rage can push the mind into doing things the body wouldn't normally do. These two kids had at least a dozen reasons to do what they did - not justified, but to them it was real. Separating fact from fiction is as simple as separating paranoia and reality - just ask any gunowner. See where I'm going with this?

[eternal cynic]

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>
But I thought they both had a mental illnesses? Not a fair statement, I won't bait you like that, but I do believe that what these people have is not necessarily a mental illness, but a mental episode. Rage can push the mind into doing things the body wouldn't normally do. These two kids had at least a dozen reasons to do what they did - not justified, but to them it was real. Separating fact from fiction is as simple as separating paranoia and reality - just ask any gunowner. See where I'm going with this?

I agree rage can set anyone off given proper circumstances. How much reasonable rage did the Columbine shooters have? I’ve seen people lose their temper over the mildest of occurrences in their lives. People have been murdered over a parking space. Would you call someone that would murder another in that circumstance “normal”?

Back to Columbine
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/incompete...
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politi...
http://www.fullspate.net/archive/columbine.ht...
There is short commentary from Dylan’s mother here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/10/susa...

Sandy Hook there is no doubt that shooter had a serious mental issue. His mother was aware of his issues and didn’t secure the firearms.

I’m all for limiting firearms to people with mental illness unable to rationalize day to day life.

I know a lot of gun owners. Not just gun owners but very serious collectors and shooters. I know the mentally all too well. Some of the finest people I’ve met in my life. But, I have also met a few that made me feel uneasy,

[milwaukee69]

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree rage can set anyone off given proper circumstances. How much reasonable rage did the Columbine shooters have? I’ve seen people lose their temper over the mildest of occurrences in their lives. People have been murdered over a parking space. Would you call someone that would murder another in that circumstance “normal”?
Back to Columbine
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/incompete...
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politi...
http://www.fullspate.net/archive/columbine.ht...
There is short commentary from Dylan’s mother here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/10/susa...
Sandy Hook there is no doubt that shooter had a serious mental issue. His mother was aware of his issues and didn’t secure the firearms.
I’m all for limiting firearms to people with mental illness unable to rationalize day to day life.
I know a lot of gun owners. Not just gun owners but very serious collectors and shooters. I know the mentally all too well. Some of the finest people I’ve met in my life. But, I have also met a few that made me feel uneasy,

Those "few" that made you feel "uneasy." All of them lived in the state of Georgia, didn't they?

How do you limit the guns in the hands of sane people that are related to the mentally ill?

[eternal cynic]

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>
Those "few" that made you feel "uneasy." All of them lived in the state of Georgia, didn't they?
How do you limit the guns in the hands of sane people that are related to the mentally ill?

No, all of them didn’t live in Georgia. Every one I’ve met has been in Florida. Focus on the word few.

Can’t be done. You can take preventative measures but someone determined will obtain a firearm. Our war on drugs is a great example of how well prohibition works. Making relevant mental health data available to the background check system would make it more difficult but wouldn’t resolve the problem.

[milwaukee69]

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
No, all of them didn’t live in Georgia. Every one I’ve met has been in Florida. Focus on the word few.
Can’t be done. You can take preventative measures but someone determined will obtain a firearm. Our war on drugs is a great example of how well prohibition works. Making relevant mental health data available to the background check system would make it more difficult but wouldn’t resolve the problem.

How do we know it wouldn't work? I mean, that's all I hear lately out of the pro-gun camp - "Oh, that won't work." Or, "We've tried that before and it didn't work."

I've heard nothing in the way of an intelligent suggestion from them that would realistically take the guns out of the hands of bad guys other than, "If you take away our guns, only criminals will have guns."

Where are all the criminals getting their guns from if the system is so "self-policing?"

[Where Is My America]

mean green morgan wrote:

Piers is rude to his guess and he stops them from speaking wisdom while on the air by talking over them.Send him back where he came from he has over stayed his welcome and his visa.He is very disrespectful to our constitution calling it our little book.

100 percent correct.

[eternal cynic]

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>
How do we know it wouldn't work? I mean, that's all I hear lately out of the pro-gun camp - "Oh, that won't work." Or, "We've tried that before and it didn't work."
I've heard nothing in the way of an intelligent suggestion from them that would realistically take the guns out of the hands of bad guys other than, "If you take away our guns, only criminals will have guns."
Where are all the criminals getting their guns from if the system is so "self-policing?"

What? Look at our war on drugs, compare it to prohibition of alcohol. Then you compare removing guns from law abiding people to criminals illegally using guns.

Prohibition of alcohol gave rise to organized crime in our nation. How does that compare to our current war on drugs?

Where do criminals obtain their inventory of drugs to sell?

Who said the current system is self-policing?

[milwaukee69]

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
What? Look at our war on drugs, compare it to prohibition of alcohol. Then you compare removing guns from law abiding people to criminals illegally using guns.
Prohibition of alcohol gave rise to organized crime in our nation. How does that compare to our current war on drugs?
Where do criminals obtain their inventory of drugs to sell?
Who said the current system is self-policing?

First of all, prohibition of alcohol wasn't done to save lives - gun control is. Prohibition in the United States focused on the manufacture and sale of alcohol. Drinking itself was never illegal, and there were exceptions for medicinal and religious uses.

All I asked was where are all the bad guys getting their guns from? My point was, nobody knows. There is no statistics that point to one source or another. Also, there is very limited data on the amount of stolen weapons that make it into the hands of bad guys each year. Even the courts seldom persue charges on crimes with a stolen weapon - choosing rather to prosecute the more serious crime instead.

Lastly, without any type of control, any system has to be assumed to be "self-policing." The NRA insists that arming the nation is the right thing to do - as if this nation didn't already have too many guns. Face it - not everyone that wants a gun should own a gun - let alone be allowed to carry one. It would be different if every gun owner were as responsible as yourself, but unfortunately the laws of averages say otherwise.

Again, I'm not advocating anti-gun anything. I just think there's got to be a better way instead of just blindly arming everyone and waiting for a tyrannical government to attack.

[eternal cynic]

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>
First of all, prohibition of alcohol wasn't done to save lives - gun control is. Prohibition in the United States focused on the manufacture and sale of alcohol. Drinking itself was never illegal, and there were exceptions for medicinal and religious uses.
All I asked was where are all the bad guys getting their guns from? My point was, nobody knows. There is no statistics that point to one source or another. Also, there is very limited data on the amount of stolen weapons that make it into the hands of bad guys each year. Even the courts seldom persue charges on crimes with a stolen weapon - choosing rather to prosecute the more serious crime instead.
Lastly, without any type of control, any system has to be assumed to be "self-policing." The NRA insists that arming the nation is the right thing to do - as if this nation didn't already have too many guns. Face it - not everyone that wants a gun should own a gun - let alone be allowed to carry one. It would be different if every gun owner were as responsible as yourself, but unfortunately the laws of averages say otherwise.
Again, I'm not advocating anti-gun anything. I just think there's got to be a better way instead of just blindly arming everyone and waiting for a tyrannical government to attack.

With prohibition reason doesn’t matter. It simply doesn’t work. You stated

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>
How do we know it wouldn't work? I mean, that's all I hear lately out of the pro-gun camp - "Oh, that won't work." Or, "We've tried that before and it didn't work."

Now you use reason to alter?

Does making the lives of law abiding citizens more difficult prevent crime? Yes or no.

Interesting, you assume self-policing and you assume no control. You’re wrong on both counts. There’s a great deal of control. Cumulatively there are more than 20,000 gun control laws in the US. One can look to Chicago, Washington, DC, Los Angeles. All have very strict gun control. In Chicago and DC there was effectively an outright ban on hand guns. How well did that work?

Who said anything about arming anyone? I’m not willing to pay for someone else’s gun. If a law abiding citizens desires to exercise their second amendment right they should be permitted to do so. If they shoot someone without justification they should be held accountable and be punished.


What is your experience with firearms?

[milwaukee69]

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
What is your experience with firearms?

I've hunted since the age of 16. Mostly with an aged Ithica riot gun (12 ga) that my grandfather gave to me. I still own my service .45 and inherited an Israeli 50 cal Desert Eagle (I have 3 rounds left - stopped shooting it when I learned how much the loads cost). The shotgun is cased and locked, seperate from the ammunition (deer slugs and bird shot). Both pistols are field stripped and locked (seperate from ammo) soaking in Cosmoline. I earned a marksman ribbon in the service with my service .45.

I carry no weapon (concealed or open). I also do not have any of my guns loaded in waiting at home. I'm not paranoid enough to think I need protection 24 hours a day. At home, at night - I trust 125 pounds of white German Shephard to be my alarm and my deterrent - he is much better prepared to deal with an intruder than I am at 3 in the morning.

[eternal cynic]

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>
I've hunted since the age of 16. Mostly with an aged Ithica riot gun (12 ga) that my grandfather gave to me. I still own my service .45 and inherited an Israeli 50 cal Desert Eagle (I have 3 rounds left - stopped shooting it when I learned how much the loads cost). The shotgun is cased and locked, seperate from the ammunition (deer slugs and bird shot). Both pistols are field stripped and locked (seperate from ammo) soaking in Cosmoline. I earned a marksman ribbon in the service with my service .45.
I carry no weapon (concealed or open). I also do not have any of my guns loaded in waiting at home. I'm not paranoid enough to think I need protection 24 hours a day. At home, at night - I trust 125 pounds of white German Shephard to be my alarm and my deterrent - he is much better prepared to deal with an intruder than I am at 3 in the morning.

By contrast I’m an avid collector and a frequent shooter to this day. Essentially everything you own has been stowed, probably for years.

I do keep a few loaded weapons in my home. Why not? I have them so I may as well leave a few loaded. I no longer have children in my home so there’s no need to separate ammo from the gun. Though I do have an electronic lock on my ammo room so I can store anything loaded when friends with children do come by.

The perimeter of my home is monitored electronically. There are cameras both inside and outside my home monitoring as well. Video is stored off premise so there will always be an image of a possible intruder.

I’m not at all concerned about intruders. I live in a very nice upscale gated community. We’ve had zero crime since the first home was built. One can not rely on that alone to maintain a safe home.

I will head to the range this weekend. Most likely I’ll fire 500-600 rounds at varying distances. I practice with pistil at 10 yards, 20 yards, 25 yards and nearly every week. Then I may practice pistol at 50 yards if I’m still feeling up to it. Then I’ll break out a rifle or two just for some fun plinking at 100 yards. I go nearly every weekend and spend 4-5 hours having fun. This I do for myself, I’ve been hounded by friends to enter competition. That would take the fun out of it.

How long has it been since you’ve actually fired a weapon?

[Richard_]

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>
First of all, prohibition of alcohol wasn't done to save lives - gun control is. Prohibition in the United States focused on the manufacture and sale of alcohol. Drinking itself was never illegal, and there were exceptions for medicinal and religious uses.
All I asked was where are all the bad guys getting their guns from? My point was, nobody knows. There is no statistics that point to one source or another. Also, there is very limited data on the amount of stolen weapons that make it into the hands of bad guys each year. Even the courts seldom persue charges on crimes with a stolen weapon - choosing rather to prosecute the more serious crime instead.
Lastly, without any type of control, any system has to be assumed to be "self-policing." The NRA insists that arming the nation is the right thing to do - as if this nation didn't already have too many guns. Face it - not everyone that wants a gun should own a gun - let alone be allowed to carry one. It would be different if every gun owner were as responsible as yourself, but unfortunately the laws of averages say otherwise.
Again, I'm not advocating anti-gun anything. I just think there's got to be a better way instead of just blindly arming everyone and waiting for a tyrannical government to attack.

Just another wildly meandering post with made up examples and no where to go. Hard to believe there as so many fkd up fruitloops in this country.

[milwaukee69]

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
By contrast I’m an avid collector and a frequent shooter to this day. Essentially everything you own has been stowed, probably for years.
I do keep a few loaded weapons in my home. Why not? I have them so I may as well leave a few loaded. I no longer have children in my home so there’s no need to separate ammo from the gun. Though I do have an electronic lock on my ammo room so I can store anything loaded when friends with children do come by.
The perimeter of my home is monitored electronically. There are cameras both inside and outside my home monitoring as well. Video is stored off premise so there will always be an image of a possible intruder.
I’m not at all concerned about intruders. I live in a very nice upscale gated community. We’ve had zero crime since the first home was built. One can not rely on that alone to maintain a safe home.
I will head to the range this weekend. Most likely I’ll fire 500-600 rounds at varying distances. I practice with pistil at 10 yards, 20 yards, 25 yards and nearly every week. Then I may practice pistol at 50 yards if I’m still feeling up to it. Then I’ll break out a rifle or two just for some fun plinking at 100 yards. I go nearly every weekend and spend 4-5 hours having fun. This I do for myself, I’ve been hounded by friends to enter competition. That would take the fun out of it.
How long has it been since you’ve actually fired a weapon?

I actually went deer hunting last year during the Thanksgiving holiday week. I din't see anything worth shooting though. Actually fired a weapon? Probably three years ago - rabbit hunting with my brother on his farm with my Model 37.

It's been decades since I fired my service .45. Probably about the same for my Eagle.

It just doesn't interest me anymore. You know, like a hobby interest I guess. I told my son that the pistols are his if he's interested - he's never shown interest in them though. My grandson has, but he's got a few more years before that'll happen. Plus I want to train him.

[Besara]

Richard_ wrote:

<quoted text>Just another wildly meandering post with made up examples and no where to go. Hard to believe there as so many fkd up fruitloops in this country.

What did you expect from someone advocating victim disarmament/criminal enabling policies?

[eternal cynic]

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>
I actually went deer hunting last year during the Thanksgiving holiday week. I din't see anything worth shooting though. Actually fired a weapon? Probably three years ago - rabbit hunting with my brother on his farm with my Model 37.
It's been decades since I fired my service .45. Probably about the same for my Eagle.
It just doesn't interest me anymore. You know, like a hobby interest I guess. I told my son that the pistols are his if he's interested - he's never shown interest in them though. My grandson has, but he's got a few more years before that'll happen. Plus I want to train him.

At this point it may be wise to tap a friend that’s an avid current shooter to help train your grandson when that time comes. If it’s been decades allow fresher wisdom to prevail.

The range I use is perfect for new shooters. They’re very strict with rules. Even the members will say something to non-compliant shooters. The perfect environment to learn safety rules. I’m sure there is a comparable range in your area.