Florida man shoots door-to-door salesman dead for 'trespassing'

What invariably answers questions like these is TIME

 

I'd suggest Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, JayZ, and Oprah Winfrey.

 

If we can't predict when or if mental cases are going to use guns, and if we are not going to use the "nut case" label until only after a gun killing, it seems to me that the mental instability issue should be carved out of the gun debate entirely.

 

Being followed is justification to beat somebody up?

 

they do have a couple of coins to rub together

 

Not quite sure what you mean by that. Is that kinda like - let's pass Obamacare and we'll worry about what's in it and how it works later?

 

I would think the determinations would have to do with the mental illness being connected with being dangerous by having a gun. Some mental illnesses are. Some aren't. I have a concealed weapon license, I carry a gun, and I do have a mental illness. It is agoraphobia (fear of wide open spaces). So I don't walk around on rooftops, I don't sit in the upper deck of a sports stadium, and I don't drive across large bridges. None of this has any connection to being dangerous with or without a gun. If someone had aquaphobia (fear of bodies of water), acrophobia (fear of heights), or the eating disorder like Karen Carpenter was afflicted with, none of these would be relevant. However, if someone had a mental illness whereby they had a tendency to break out into violent temper tantrums, yes, that would be a limiting factor. This isn't so hard to determine.

 

not to marginalize your statement but you failed to answer the real question: IF someone who is "normal" one day and owns guns, and goes off the deep end the next, just how could a registration base prevent that?

 

Yes clearly some conditions would be more relevant than others. But who is to make these determinations? Does anyone that has ever gone to a shrink have their shrinks make this determination for them? Or is it anyone who has ever had to take an anger management course? Is there a new huge government bureaucracy that is created for overseeing this? The subjective nature of mental disorders make this extremely complicated and the number of people with some kind of condition is very extensive.

"Although fewer than 6 percent of American adults will have a severe mental illness in a given year, according to a 2005 study, many more—more than a quarter each year—will have some diagnosable mental disorder. That’s a lot of people. Almost 50 percent of Americans (46.4 percent to be exact) will have a diagnosable mental illness in their lifetimes."

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...edition_why_will_half_the_u_s_population.html

 

I'm not sure if you mean one who modulates between normal and crazy, or if you mean one who has always been normal and one day just goes crazy.

 

sorry, the last part of your statement is the stance.

 

One who has always been normal and one day just goes crazy, had nothing to do with extended background checks. They cover only those who have a crazy, crime-oriented background, so what's the point of bring that off topic subject into the discussion ?

 

and if britain and the oligarchy elites had their way only "THEIR" military would have guns, the rest of us would be amputated.

- - - Updated - - -

that pretty easy to get now days, just hang out with OWS or any other dissenting group, and you will be on the list.

 

I don't think so.

 

I'm just going by Zimmerman's own words during the NEN call. Are you aware of any crime that Martin was committing while Zimmerman called for the cops?

 

I depends on how much somebody is following you. Besides, there is no proof that Zimmerman didn't just follow Martin. Maybe he called him an ass**** to his face instead of just on the phone.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd rather be amputated than be dead from a psycho running around with a machine gun.

 

more insane supposition.............prove your statement

 

.

interesting read, but this claim is still supposition. There were no facts introduced into court via the phone conversation, that substantiates such a claim. This is a "what if" game. Juries and prosecutors do not deal with "what if's".....................
Take note of the "maybe"............that conversation never occurred.

 

We prefer to call it "The Gunshine State".

 

I see.

 

Yes the SAME lives that would be saved now, after the bill has failed.

And you are denying ther FACT that the bill did NOTHING to address mental illness getting reported to NICS.

How convenient and idiotic. You ignore the law the already saves lives-- the same lives you boast about--- and in the same breath you say "lets pass another bill to make a new law so we can feel good about ourselves and never-mind if it doesn't do anything to improve the situation"..

Yeah-- the SAME MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY BEING STOPPED FROM BUYING GUNS UNDER THE CURRENT LAW. Just repeating yourself doesn't make you wiser... it only affirms the idiocy of the idea about passing a bill to make another law that doesn't improve on the existing law. Yeah, that's what we need, no progress, just more laws that only burden those who already obey the law.

Of course you say nothing about the one thing that is common to mass shooting....and that is called ignoring the facts. Bringing facts into the discussion can only be construed as "changing the subject" by one who lacks command of the subject matter.

You are redundant. The current law already does that. And what I say is that the bill you profess to be the miracle cure does absolutely NOTHING MORE than the existing law already does.

It's the same subject, but you don't know enough to realize that FACT.

And the FACT that you don't understand that connection just proves your lack of knowledge of the subject matter. The ignorance has been duly noted.

I don't need to learn anything from you.... America has been dumbed down enough by such pablum.

Show me where it is in the bill that would save any MORE lives that what the existing law does... i.e. gets more of the mentally ill reported to NICIS. I'll not suffer any further rants or whining... just show me where it is in the bill that saves MORE lives... not the same lives that would be saved by the existing law.

 

I guess you don't know what a suppositional phrase is?

 

WHAT A WASTE OF PERFECTLY GOOD FORUM SPACE.

 

And I see you are so proud of owning it...

So how about showing me the "EBC" (lol) bill that saves MORE lives than the current law?