Should intelligent psychopaths who lack empathy, own guns ?

Should intelligent psychopaths who lack empathy, own guns

  • Total voters
    94
Status
Not open for further replies.
crusader911 said:
Solution:

All guns should have the latest finger print technology so that only the legal owner will be able to operate the gun thus avoiding accidents ( minors getting shot ) or guns being stolen

plus in order to be licensed, all potential owners will be subject to a government-paid brain scan in order to detect empathy
Click to expand...

Solution.
Sci-Fi Fantasy that does not exist in the real world.

We really could use an age and intelligence test before allowing posts.
:rolleyes:
 
crusader911 said:
I wonder why the weapon of choice is usually a gun in the commission of a crime ? could it be because it is very easy to get a gun

http://news.yahoo.com/fla-craigslist-jobseeker-found-dead-ohio-grave-230030628.html
Click to expand...
If guns were outlawed, law abiding citizens would be protecting themselves from violent criminals with kitchen knives and baseball bats. Of course, some criminals would still have guns. How is that fair? And if no one had guns, everyone could use knives or crowbars or something. Should we ban all knives, forks, crowbars, baseball bats, and any other sharp or blunt metal object? The banned items list would be ridiculous. I can just see it now, "Man Arrested for Illegal Contraband, Caught Carrying a Fork"
 
are you saying that every criminal or terror suspect who wants a gun should be allowed to buy a gun since they are going to get one anyway ?

gun control does work as seen in countries with strict gun control where due to gun control, the death toll is significantly less than in America
 
pcosmar said:
Solution.
Sci-Fi Fantasy that does not exist in the real world.

We really could use an age and intelligence test before allowing posts.
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I dunno Pete. A quick google just brought up this...http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TECH/01/31/spark.intelligent.firearm/index.html

Biometrics technology means the weapon is linked to a user. When a registered thumbprint comes into contact with the biometrics reader on the gun, it enables the weapon to work, identifying the print within a timeframe of between a third of a second and a quarter of a second.
Click to expand...

I don't like this strange new world. Not at all.
 
pcosmar said:
Way too slow. I can draw and shoot faster than that.

Aside from the other drawbacks, like price and reliability.

as an example,,,

Click to expand...


Oh, I don't dispute this. From the article I was merely pointing out that biometric weapons identifiers are rapidly advancing. However, I don't think that anything of this nature could ever be implemented in the U.S.. Mostly because I do not believe there is that much time left before TSHTF.
 
crusader911 said:
are you saying that every criminal or terror suspect who wants a gun should be allowed to buy a gun since they are going to get one anyway ?

gun control does work as seen in countries with strict gun control where due to gun control, the death toll is significantly less than in America
Click to expand...



You deserve to live in such a world
 
Last edited:
Over 50 shots were fired at a crowd of people, hitting eight ( one year old among those hit and is in a coma )

http://www.theboombox.com/2011/11/29/kafani-shooting/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl2|sec3_lnk3|116515

Comment:


Another instance where the weapon of choice is a gun.

If legal gun ownership does not have finger print technology on every gun and does not require a brain scan to get a gun license, incidents like this will be common place in countries with very little gun control
 
crusader911 said:
Over 50 shots were fired at a crowd of people, hitting eight ( one year old among those hit and is in a coma )

http://www.theboombox.com/2011/11/29/kafani-shooting/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl2|sec3_lnk3|116515

Comment:


Another instance where the weapon of choice is a gun.

If legal gun ownership does not have finger print technology on every gun and does not require a brain scan to get a gun license, incidents like this will be common place in countries with very little gun control
Click to expand...
Why didn't the police stop the shooter? Why didn't anybody stop him? It is illegal to shoot people. Fifty shots is a lot. Somebody should have stopped him. Obviously, the law failed to stop him and so did the unarmed citizens. If everybody that wanted to be armed was armed, then somebody would have been shooting back. What you propose is to make everybody a shooting duck. Well that sucks.

Considering the fact that virtually anyone with a few skills can make a 'gun' in their basement or garage with a pipe and readily available products, what makes you think taking everybody's gun away will stop gun violence? It doesn't work in D.C.
 
Travlyr said:
. What you propose is to make everybody a shooting duck. Well that sucks..
Click to expand...

Everybody is a "shooting duck" in strict gun control countries such as Malaysia, Singapore and the UK

and yet those countries have 31 to 60 times less gun deaths compared to the US

Britain ( strict gun control ) number of gun homicides per 100,000 in 2004 : 0.13 ( total gun homicides : 32 )
USA 's number of gun homicides per 100,000 in 2003 : 4.0 ( total gun homicides : 11,599 )

http://www.ipu.org/PDF/publications/missing_en.pdf


for every person who dies due to the use of guns in Malaysia, as many as 40 people in the US die from the use of guns


http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/malaysia

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states


For every gun death in Singapore ( strict gun control ) there are over 63 gun deaths in the US ( comparing similar years and similar standards of living ) :


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
 
Pericles said:


You deserve to live in such a world
Click to expand...


That is a very well done and convincing video. I'm going to have to show that to a few of my anti-gun friends and let them see the consequences of their actions. Thank for sharing!
 
You're right.

They would have been stabbed, poisoned, drowned or beaten to death.

Fucked up is fucked up. HE killed them, not the guns.

Get a fuckin' clue.

crusader911 said:
Man shoots woman and her four kids:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-.../?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec3_lnk1|116806

Comment :


The poor kids would not have been shot if guns were strictly controlled.

This man would not have obtained a gun if the law required him to have a government-paid brain scan to detect empathy
Click to expand...
 
I feel like the only thing that is at issue is if said sociopath is more or less likely to break the law than anyone of normal mental healthy, or not. If someone is set on murdering others access to guns is irrelevant. It is just as likely they'll use a knife, or baseball bat, or a big rock. Guns may be the first weapon they'd think of but denial of weapons access wouldn't stop them from getting creative. So the question should really be is a psychopath more likely to break the law and murder someone or not, and if they are what should be done about it? I personally don't feel like any punishment is justified if they haven't yet committed a crime, or attempted to commit a crime. You don't take away rights based on what someone MIGHT do. That's be like the government arresting you and detaining you indefinitely because having 7 days worth fo food in your house means you MIGHT be a terrorist-so to Gitmo you go!
 
Last edited:
PierzStyx said:
I feel like the only thing that is at issue is if said sociopath is more or less likely to break the law than anyone of normal mental healthy, or not. If someone is set on murdering others access to guns is irrelevant. It is just as likely they'll use a knife, or baseball bat, or a big rock. Guns may be the first weapon they'd think of but denial of weapons access wouldn't stop them from getting creative. So the question should really be is a psychopath more likely to break the law and murder someone or not, and if they are what should be done about it? I personally don't feel like any punishment is justified if they haven't yet committed a crime, or attempted to commit a crime. You don't take away rights based on what someone MIGHT do.
Click to expand...

The OP title suggestion would force many of our law enforcement officers to trade in their guns for these:
5829.jpg


Fortunately, most would be able to keep their guns since they didn't fall under the "intelligent" qualifier.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
Should intelligent psychopaths who lack empathy, own guns ?
Replies
1
Views
2K
ProIndividual
ProIndividual
P
Should intelligent psychopaths who lack empathy, own guns ?
Replies
1
Views
2K
ProIndividual
ProIndividual
Back
Top