imfdb.org  

Go Back   imfdb.org > The Forum > Off Topic

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-22-2010, 06:25 PM
S&Wshooter's Avatar
S&Wshooter S&Wshooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,936
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post
BurtReynolds is saying that we should kill or permanently imprison ANYONE who can't be trusted with firearms. That is impractical and too extreme.

Agreed. There is such a thing as overkill. You don't have to be a psycopathic violent offender to not be able to own a gun. I know a guy who can no longer own a gun because he slapped his wife to stop her from beating (like kicking him in the ribs after smashing his head into the wall and him falling on the floor) their son. Does he deserve to die? No
__________________
Get off of my property


http://www.introvertisland.com
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-22-2010, 07:55 PM
BurtReynoldsMoustache BurtReynoldsMoustache is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 929
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by S&Wshooter View Post
Agreed. There is such a thing as overkill. You don't have to be a psycopathic violent offender to not be able to own a gun. I know a guy who can no longer own a gun because he slapped his wife to stop her from beating (like kicking him in the ribs after smashing his head into the wall and him falling on the floor) their son. Does he deserve to die? No
Well this is completely different. What you're describing is somebody caught up in the horrible clusterfuck that is domestic violence. The laws concerning that sort of thing are all fucked up and what should be a very clear cut case (she attacked the son, he moved to defend the son) is instead an idiotic boondoggle that has resulted in him being labeled the bad guy. He shouldn't have any sort of record for that, she is the one who should be locked away.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-22-2010, 08:22 PM
MT2008's Avatar
MT2008 MT2008 is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,619
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache View Post
Well this is completely different. What you're describing is somebody caught up in the horrible clusterfuck that is domestic violence. The laws concerning that sort of thing are all fucked up and what should be a very clear cut case (she attacked the son, he moved to defend the son) is instead an idiotic boondoggle that has resulted in him being labeled the bad guy. He shouldn't have any sort of record for that, she is the one who should be locked away.
Right, but what about this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post
I have a friend whose ex-boyfriend has PTSD (he did two tours Cav in Iraq), and he's prone to all sorts of paranoid fits and temper tantrums. She broke up with him, and at one point, he texted her and threatened to shoot her. Later (after his parents intervened), he finally apologized to her, and now he's in therapy. Personally, I don't want this dude to have guns given his current mental state, but I also don't think he needs to be imprisoned just because I don't trust him with weapons.
You've said that people who can't be trusted with guns should be locked up. Don't you think that would be too extreme in this case?
__________________
Cry "Havoc," and let slip the hogs of war.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-22-2010, 09:53 PM
BurtReynoldsMoustache BurtReynoldsMoustache is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 929
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post
You've said that people who can't be trusted with guns should be locked up. Don't you think that would be too extreme in this case?
He shouldn't be imprisoned, but he definitely shouldn't be "free". And by "not free" I don't necessarily mean institutionalized.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-22-2010, 10:02 PM
MT2008's Avatar
MT2008 MT2008 is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,619
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache View Post
He shouldn't be imprisoned, but he definitely shouldn't be "free". And by "not free" I don't necessarily mean institutionalized.
Then what do you mean? You're being too vague. And earlier, you specifically said that if somebody can't be trusted with a gun, they can't be trusted with freedom. By your standards, almost any of our veterans with PTSD would have to be locked up (bearing in mind that many guys who join the military tend to also be gun owners).
__________________
Cry "Havoc," and let slip the hogs of war.

Last edited by MT2008; 11-22-2010 at 10:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-23-2010, 04:04 PM
Jcordell Jcordell is offline
Formerly "Checkman"
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,034
Default

Couple of weeks ago I had to arrest a veteran for hitting his wife. The guy survived a tour each in Afghanistan and Iraq. He has an 80% disability. He's been diagnosed with PTSD and other physical injuries. But domestic battery is against the law and the circumstances surrounding the battery required me to take action.

He had a Mossberg Cruiser loaded with OO Buck in his bedroom when we got there. He was peaceful and went along quietly. Nice enough guy, but I knew about the shotgun on the way to his house. We talked on the way to the jail and we got along. But what happens if things go bad again after a few months and we have to go back. Only this time he isn't feeling so hospitable?

No solution and no suggestions. Just something I experienced a couple weeks ago. More and more of those men and women are going to be in our world and they will be a real presence for the next forty some years. Most of them will be fine and do their best to get on with their lives. We already have a few vets as officers with my department and they're great people.

My dad is a Vietnam veteran and started in law enforcment in 1970. Cops in the 70's and 80's found themselves having contact with many vets. They were always a presence during those twenty some years. Most were fine, but a few had issues.

Now I have a whole range of tools available to me in 2010 that dad did not have in 1974. Back then a cop had his straight stick, sap/blackjack, maybe tear gas and his sidearm. Also they didn't have the training and resources available to me and my fellow officers today. I've been able to prevent more than one inccident from going deadly thanks to my Taser, Pepper Spray, and handheld radio for example and we understand what the vets are going through. Back in the early seventies alot of the cops who were vets were from WWII and Korea and actually weren't all that sympathetic to the Vietnam guys. Probably effected they way they dealt with them at times. Just a guess though.

This time around things seem to be a little smoother. The country as a whole seems to treating the vets better. Big improvement over what my father and his fellow vets got when they came home. Certainly can't hurt at least.

Oh a sidenote here. It's been my experience that most vets are fairly easy to work with. The conditioning that one gets from the military (I include myself here even though I was a peactime soldier) makes one more affable to authority and rank. Most vets also tend to support the cops. They see us a cousin of sorts. And that's fine with me. I'll use any advantage I can to avoid violence.

Anyway just my two cents. This ,uh, situation isn't going to go away anytime soon.

Last edited by Jcordell; 11-23-2010 at 04:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.