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.
Everyone has a right to own firearms, even 'convicted felons', psychopaths, etc.

The sole purpose of Govt is to strip natural rights.
 
pubjohn47 said:
If everyone is armed, what is to stop criminals from being even more armed by buying heavy body armor, grenade launchers, very heavy machine guns and sniper rifles that can shoot from half mile away ?
Click to expand...

And you don't like this scenario because...?

I don't know about you, but someone in a kevlar helmet and wearing a grenade launcher on a shoulder strap will kind of get my attention. In fact, I might just make it a point to be somewhere else about then.

Got any goofier scenarios for us? What's to stop someone with road rage from buying an old Sherman tank and running everyone over? Except the fact that an old M-4 can't even do thirty miles an hour, that is.

Pure silliness. Even goofier than your attempt to goad us into slamming some website you were mad at when your first joined. Thanks but no thanks.
 
Echoes said:
Everyone has a right to own firearms, even 'convicted felons', psychopaths, etc.

The sole purpose of Govt is to strip natural rights.
Click to expand...

This is the crux of the issue. Let us forget that the term "psychopath" is lacking in objective meaning and grant for argument's sake that such a thing exists and is readily diagnosable with consistent precision. So what? Does being a psychopath disqualify one's presumably equal claim to life? Are his rights less? If so, then what other conditions disqualify him from holding natural rights?

The entire corpus of the philosophy that propounds the denial of rights as a mean of prior restraint exercised against an arbitrarily chosen subset of a population is fraught with problems. The position that recognizes and respects the inalienable rights of every individual regardless of their particular "configuration" manifests none of these issues. This philosophy responds to criminal action only, showing full respect to those who are beyond the hands of external governance. It respects freedom and the autonomy of the individual, vis-a-vis the mentality of the authoritarian whose fundamental world view disparages the individual, individual rights, respect, and is based in a profound sense of self-hatred turned outward to the whole world of men.

Those who believe in the rectitude of the tyranny of prior restraint, because they have no trust in themselves, assume the rest of us are likewise unworthy. They have no respect for the rights of others, the proof of this being that they demand the rights of others to be violated to satisfy their morbidly self-centered need to feel safe, the latter in turn being based on morbid fear of... something... anything... everything. Cowards are more than happy to see your rights disparaged in any way that will allay their out of control fears.
 
amy31416 said:
It's a "pre-crime" mentality, so no (to your proposition to scan people).

But, very few people in our government would be allowed to own guns in that scenario, so hmmm....but they'd just hire someone to shoot other people for them.
Click to expand...

Exactly... when you start playing this game, you dive into interpretations of what is considered to be mental illness. Anything can be considered a mental illness by the powers at be. Rather than using government to restrict things, how about we free up citizens to do what comes naturally... that is, to prevent such tragedies from occurring by use of force.
 
Osan,acptulsa-excellent posts.



"Should everybody who wants to own a gun or purchase large quantities of fertilizer be subject to a brain scan that detects psychopathic, unempathetic behavior ?"

pubjohn47-
Heres an idea for you.

Lets subject the whole populace to brain scans by one group of people and then determine who has "rights" based on a "law" made by the same group of people that administers the scans.

I bet you'll very quickly find out who has "rights" and who doesn't.

Better yet,lets just toss the whole idea of God given inalienable rights that are a part of our humanity.
Lets allow the benevolent,all knowing and scientifically superior government to just engineer our entire society,with the power to make any law it wants,and just make up any "rights" and take any "rights" it wants any time it pleases.

Only- then you don't have "rights".

You have government administered PRIVILEGES.

And guess who will GET ALL THE PRIVILEGE?

Do you REALLY think,that if government is not restrained by law and ultimately BY FORCE to respect the inalienable rights of The People,that those that run government won't ensure that THEY benefit from the power they wield,despite all the altruistic "for the good of the children" nonsense they spew?

If you do,then you need to take a look at how Communists always talk about how they want total power to engineer a society "for the working class",and then see the differences in how that "championed" "working class" is treated from the political czars and party members in actual examples of Communist nations.

Get the point?

And while were at making mandatory brain scans and all the other despicable nonsense you think you can use to justify ignoring and outright violating the inalienable rights of your fellow man,lets talk about ANOTHER form of "science" that was used in the last century "for the good of society" - EUGENICS.
Once upon a time,all you elitist types thought that it would be a GOOD IDEA for the government to determine by pseudo-scientific principle WHO WAS FIT TO LIVE AND PROCREATE.
Woodrow Wilson,that great Progressive Leader,was a devout believer in Eugenics.In fact most of your Progressive Socialist(these days you also call yourselves "liberals") predecessors were.
http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/

SO WAS ADOLPH HITLER.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics

In a debate between simply respecting the inalienable rights of mankind,or allowing government to engineer a society "for our own good"-
There really IS NO debate.

Its GOOD VS EVIL.

So I voted "NO"

"Intelligent psychopaths that lack empathy",in other words,elitist types who want to give everyone brain scans as a prerequisite to assigning them government administered privileges,and who have ABSOLUTELY NO RESPECT FOR THEIR FELLOW MAN'S INALIENABLE,HUMAN RIGHTS, and probably still think eugenics was the greatest thing since sliced bread -PEOPLE LIKE YOU- should not own guns.

You should be in the custody of the state you love so dear, in an insane asylum.
 
Last edited:
Revolution9 said:
Yer totally out of left field. And those studies have been done. Gun control leads to crime stats rising and countries instituting gun control often become oppressive regimes the citizens wished they had held onto their guns under.

Rev9
Click to expand...

Just for the sake of the attempted edification of the OP-

Lets look at some gun death related statistics,shall we?



Lets look at what happens when a government has a total monopoly on the use of force,which our founders wrote the Second Amendment to prevent.



Lets look at all the different nations that have conducted 'democide',or the mass murder of their own citizens,whilst using 'gun control' to make it imposable for their victims to mount effective resistance to tyranny-



Lets look at DEATH by 'gun control'-



--Ottoman Turkey,1915-1917, 1-1.5 million murdered

Art. 166, Pen. Code, 1866
& 1911 Proclamation, 1915



• Permits required •Government list of owners
•Ban on possession



--S o v i e t Union,1929-1945, 20 million murdered

Resolutions, 1918
Decree, July 12, 1920
Art. 59 & 182, Pen. code, 1926



•Licensing of owners
•Ban on possession
•Severe penalties



--N a z i Germany& Occupied Europe,1933-1945,20 million murdered

Law on Firearms & Ammun., 1928
Weapon Law, March 18, 1938
Regulations against Jews, 1938



•Registration & Licensing
•Stricter handgun laws
•Ban on possession



--China, Nationalist,1927-1949,10 million murdered

Art. 205, Crim. Code, 1914
Art. 186-87, Crim. Code, 1935



•Government permit system
•Ban on private ownership



--China, Red,1949-1952,1957-1960,1966-1976,20-35 million murdered

Act of Feb. 20, 1951
Act of Oct. 22, 1957



•Prison or death to "counter-revolutionary criminals" and anyone resisting any government program
•Death penalty for supply guns to such "criminals"





These are but a small portion of statistics of the REAL COST of 'gun control'.



For the rest,for the "Mother of All Statistics",go here-



http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm
 
I'm much more concerned about about an unarmed populace against a tyrannical government than I am about one lone gunman.
 
pubjohn47 said:
Breivik, The mass murderer of children appears to be an intelligent, well-educated individual and a competent businessman, who owned a successful farm.

Nothing in either his life story or even in this unprecedented atrocity smacks of wild insanity.


The Norwegian mass murderer of children ,Breivik, was able to perpetrate this monstrous deed is partly a reflection of the extremely liberal gun laws that operate in Scandinavia.


It was this freedom that gave Breivik easy access to high-calibre weaponry.

Moreover, his work as a farmer meant that he could acquire fertiliser for his bomb-making without raising any suspicions.

Ref : http://www.perthnow.com.au/a-glimps...eart-of-darkness/story-fn6mhct1-1226101378747


Comment:

Should everybody who wants to own a gun or purchase large quantities of fertilizer be subject to a brain scan that detects psychopathic, unempathetic behavior ?


Ref : http://www.mendeley.com/research/br...dy-semantic-affective-processing-psychopaths/
Click to expand...

These kind of events should (I know, sounds harsh) be seen as collateral damage. If you want to be consistent and bring up the issue of the right to bear arms every time some lunatic goes out to shoot people, then you should also bring it up every time WWII is mentioned.

How many jews would have been killed if everyone of them had a shotgun? What if every European had a shotgun? The nazis would have barely been able to conquer belgium, let alone the rest of Europe. Why was Switzerland not invaded while belgium was? They both announced neutrality, Switzerland was the only one packed with guns. This is the true reason behind the right to bear arms and however gruesome the collateral damage can be, this should not be forgotten.

So no, there shouldn't be harder restrictions. Certainly not in Europe.
 
Extremely strict gun control laws in Malaysia :

In Malaysia, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is

1995: 0.179


Rate of Unintentional Gun Death per 100,000 People
In Malaysia, the annual rate of unintentional shooting death per 100,000 population is

1995: 0.079

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

Liberal gun control laws in the US

Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People
the United States, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is

2008: 3.129
2007: 3.3010
2006: 3.3611
2005: 4.99
2002: 3.256
2001: 3.12
1999: 2.977
1998: 3.37
1993: 7.0713


Rate of Unintentional Gun Death per 100,000 People
In the United States, the annual rate of unintentional shooting death per 100,000 population is

2005: 0.279
2001: 0.2714
1993: 0.5919

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


As you can see from the above, Malaysia with very strict gun controls have far less ( as much as 40 times less ) people dying from using guns compared to the US


In other words, for every person who dies from using guns in Malaysia, as many as 40 people in the US die from using guns




I have no problems with individuals owning guns, but those individuals have to be well trained, well armed and subject to psychological tests and brain scans to determine that he is a stable mature person.

Israel has armed individuals in every public location and I have no problems with that.

I have no problems with the government training every 10th person or so in our society in carrying guns in full view of the public but that individual has to be well trained, well armed with full body armor and mentally stable.

Is it possible that brain scans can determine criminality before it occurs ?

http://news.discovery.com/human/could-brain-scans-be-used-to-id-criminals.html

So far, nobody has proven that the brain scans are not a good device to determine a person's mental stability.

Is it better to be safe than sorry ?

I rather be safe than sorry because if its your child's life that was taken by a criminal, would you have wished that something could have been done to prevent that crime from taking place ?

Compromise is the way to go for now and having armed individuals everywhere in every public place is fine with me as long as they are well trained, well armed with full body armor and passed psychological tests and brain scans
 
Last edited:
In Switzerland (liberal free), the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is

2010: 0.5218
2009: 0.72
2008: 0.24
2007: 0.46
2006: 0.45
2005: 0.64
2004: 0.7913
2003: 0.65
2002: 0.9315
2001: 0.65
2000: 0.5616
1999: 1.01
1998: 0.93
1997: 1.2817
1996: 1.13
1995: 0.92
1994: 0.5820

In Belgium strict, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is

1995: 0.4214 or 0.5816
1990: 0.6017



So two european countries, different policies. Same culture, same mindset, same rate.
 
pubjohn47 said:
in Malaysia :

In Malaysia,
Click to expand...

Malaysia, really?
You think a backwards third world country, that has been conquered several times in the last century, is a good example.
You are looking at gun crimes. Why don't you look at ALL crimes, (theft, assault, and murder not with a gun).
 
pcosmar said:
Malaysia, really?
You think a backwards third world country, that has been conquered several times in the last century, is a good example.
You are looking at gun crimes. Why don't you look at ALL crimes, (theft, assault, and murder not with a gun).
Click to expand...

I did look at all crimes in Malaysia compared to the US crime rate using all methods including guns.

For every homicide in Malaysia using all weapons including guns, two to three Americans are killed

but the stark difference is when you are only looking at only guns, forty times more Americans die compared to each gun homicide in Malaysia and this is signifcant because guns can kill others in crossfire compared to knives or hammers etc and that is why I think 40 times more Americans die due to using guns

due to the greater chance of collateral damage

Rate of Homicide per 100,000 People (any method)
In Malaysia, the annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population is

2006: 2.317
2005: 1.94
2000: 2.368
1999: 2.59
1998: 2.83

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

Rate of Homicide per 100,000 People (any method)
In the United States, the annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population is

2008: 4.669
2007: 4.9010
2006: 5.6211
2005: 5.58
2002: 5.626
2001: 5.62
1999: 4.557
1998: 5.19
1993: 9.9312

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
 
pubjohn47 said:
Compromise is the way to go for now and having armed individuals everywhere in every public place is fine with me as long as they are well trained, well armed with full body armor and passed psychological tests and brain scans
Click to expand...

You are a shill. I do not take your posts nor stance in any seriousness to be from a concerned citizen. You are running an agenda (think of the children..sheesh). Fortunately you won't get a plugged nickels worth of compliance to your insane and irresponsible scheme from this crowd.

Rev9
 
OP should look into a career selling scanners to the TSA - they work soooo well. F'n BS.

Quit chasing absolutes... Purchase a firearm, learn how to use it, and quit chasing heaven on earth by pursuing rule according to least common denominators.

If that doesnt sound good to you, then fine - dont purchase a firearm, and beg your neighbor to come to your aid... But quit f'n trying to trample people's rights. Its not your place, or anyone elses. Absolute security is a fools errand, only compounded by the frivolous forfeiture of rights it takes to pursue.

This thread is ridiculous.
 
The poll question is "Should intelligent psychopaths who lack empathy, own guns"

Seems like some are inferring from that question another question: "Should gov prevent them from owning guns".

My answer to both questions: No.
 
Revolution9 said:
You are a shill. I do not take your posts nor stance in any seriousness to be from a concerned citizen. You are running an agenda (think of the children..sheesh). Fortunately you won't get a plugged nickels worth of compliance to your insane and irresponsible scheme from this crowd.

Rev9
Click to expand...

The facts speak for themselves and if they don't then its up to us to ask our government to conduct serious studies of countries with very strict gun control laws such as Malaysia and compare them to countries with very liberal gun control laws.

The lives of your children and your neighbor's children are on the line when the facts say that in Malaysia you, your children and your neighbor's children have a 40 times less chance of being a victim of gun violence as compared to this country.

Guns can also kill as seen by Remingtons being poorly manufactured because gun companies have a strong lobby in government so they can become careless in their manufacture :

http://www.mmmpalaw.com/CM/Articles/Remington-700-Rifles-Pose-Dangerous-Risk-to-Consumers.asp

Unlike other consumer products, however, guns are not subject to federal health and safety regulations, meaning that the federal government is powerless to issue consumer warnings and/or recall defective firearms.

Do you know the reason why our government is not willing to conduct detailed research of countries with strict gun control laws ?

could it be because the gun corporations do not want the government conducting any detailed research ?
 
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