djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 2, 2015 13:26:47 GMT -5
If you don't wish to own a gun, then don't own one. Pretty simple. You know, free choice and all. i own one. i know how to use it. that has absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment, unfortunately.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,499
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 2, 2015 13:27:12 GMT -5
In 2011, Anders Behring Breivik of Oslo Norway set off a bomb which killed eight people and injured at least 209 people. Later that day, Breivik went a summer camp on a Norwegian island and shot and killed 69 people and injuring 110 people more. Now it has only been 4 years since that massacre, and I cannot recall another incident like that or even a minor incident like that in Norway.
Other than we have a far larger population than Sweden, why are there always reoccurring incidents with multiple victims here in the States. We kn ow his name. Norway knows his name as he is still quite alive.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Oct 2, 2015 13:34:23 GMT -5
That's exactly my point. These guys are deranged not stupid. They want to make a statement and be remembered when they're gone. They know that a mass shooting will do that, so that's how they go out. Our media and our populace feeds it. Gun control isn't the problem. Us giving these sickos exactly what they want after the fact is the problem. We can either argue about gun control, which is the means of these attacks, or we can have a serious discussion about the root cause. So far all I see from our elected leaders is a lot of squabbling over the means. None of which is going to go anywhere, we all know that, so we can all watch it unfold again in about six months. It's sick. I don't disagree, I'm just not sure it is any more fixable a problem than gun control.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 2, 2015 13:34:24 GMT -5
In 2011, Anders Behring Breivik of Oslo Norway set off a bomb which killed eight people and injured at least 209 people. Later that day, Breivik went a summer camp on a Norwegian island and shot and killed 69 people and injuring 110 people more. Now it has only been 4 years since that massacre, and I cannot recall another incident like that or even a minor incident like that in Norway. Other than we have a far larger population than Sweden, why are there always reoccurring incidents with multiple victims here in the States. We kn ow his name. Norway knows his name as he is still quite alive. no death penalty in Norway, nice prisons, maximum sentence laws. very different place, very tight gun laws.... way lower homicide rates.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,499
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 2, 2015 13:34:26 GMT -5
SDG-I don't think not publishing and not repeating a mass murderer's name is going to stop folks in the future from committing mass murder. The only way to potentially stop future mass murders is not to publish there was a mass murder in the first place. I don't think that idea would fly with anyone. I think that would only make a future mass murderer believe he has to be bigger, badder, and kill more people to get recognition.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 2, 2015 13:36:28 GMT -5
SDG-I don't think not publishing and not repeating a mass murderer's name is going to stop folks in the future from committing mass murder. The only way to potentially stop future mass murders is not to publish there was a mass murder in the first place. I don't think that idea would fly with anyone. I think that would only make a future mass murderer believe he has to be bigger, badder, and kill more people to get recognition. because of online media, the cat is thoroughly out of the bag, anyway.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 2, 2015 13:36:58 GMT -5
LOL! Fortunately, I don't have sleep apnea, don't drink coffee or other caffeinated drinks, and don't binge-eat. Hopefully, that renders me reasonably sane. Check the link I posted upthread... there were more! Yay! I'm sane! Don't have any of those, either! Seriously, I would imagine limitations would be placed on the type of mental illness diagnosed. Some of those new ones could be problematic but not all. Binge eating isn't likely to promote binge murder. I feel pretty confident of that.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,499
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 2, 2015 13:37:15 GMT -5
SDG-I don't think not publishing and not repeating a mass murderer's name is going to stop folks in the future from committing mass murder. The only way to potentially stop future mass murders is not to publish there was a mass murder in the first place. I don't think that idea would fly with anyone. I think that would only make a future mass murderer believe he has to be bigger, badder, and kill more people to get recognition. because of online media, the cat is thoroughly out of the bag, anyway. Yup. Blame the Internet.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Oct 2, 2015 14:05:46 GMT -5
If we lived in a culture that didn't release the names of the shooters, only the victims. Didn't focus on the shooter and his motivations, only the survivors and their struggles. Mass shootings would lose their appeal to suicidal nut jobs that want to be remembered. They can only get famous for killing a dozen people if we as a culture get infatuated by people that kill a dozen people. Over a decade later people still remember the names of the Columbine shooters, but can't name a single victim from that shooting spree. And we're sitting here arguing about gun control. Am I the only person on the planet who thinks we're dealing with this problem completely ass backwards. Actually, I don't. I mean I remember bits and pieces about Columbine, but not the shooters names. I also don't see the mainstream press every putting a gag on shooter info. The act of mass shootings has turned into another form of macabre theater for the American populace; its grief porn. Oh how terrible, oh how tragic, let us pray, let us forgive...and then the whole cycle starts over again. Not only do I think the the media wouldn't do it, I don't think the population would support it either. They WANT to know about these shooters. And in the internet age, that information is going to get out. So, let's not mention the killer's name and let's not mention the tragedies at all? That way there won't be any "Oh, how tragic, oh how terrible, let us pray" whatsoever. Let's ignore the problem completely by not talking about it? If we ignore it, it will go away?
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Oct 2, 2015 14:16:11 GMT -5
Actually, I don't. I mean I remember bits and pieces about Columbine, but not the shooters names. I also don't see the mainstream press every putting a gag on shooter info. The act of mass shootings has turned into another form of macabre theater for the American populace; its grief porn. Oh how terrible, oh how tragic, let us pray, let us forgive...and then the whole cycle starts over again. Not only do I think the the media wouldn't do it, I don't think the population would support it either. They WANT to know about these shooters. And in the internet age, that information is going to get out. So, let's not mention the killer's name and let's not mention the tragedies at all? That way there won't be any "Oh, how tragic, oh how terrible, let us pray" whatsoever. Let's ignore the problem completely by not talking about it? If we ignore it, it will go away? No actually, I don't think that would be effective. These asshats are looking for glory. They largely seem to be rage filled, young, white males, with mental health issues. I don't think not publishing their names is a solution. Modern "journalism" is pretty much tabloid bullshit. So even if one of two of the big news networks set it as policy to not publish, another one will see the opportunity for ratings, and will publish the info to get the scoop. The fact remains though that the American public seems content to lap this shit up as entertainment, gnash and wail, but ultimately do jack shit about actually trying to fix the problem. We can't even TALK about possible solutions without parts of the country freaking the hell out and screaming about their constitutional rights being infringed. I don't really think the problem of rampage shooters is as easy as "oh well if we do X it will fix it." It's a multifaceted problem, likely requiring a complex solution. Unfortunately, our country is controlled by morons who are only capable of talking in soundbites, and a population that doesn't seem to be able to think in anything but black and white.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,898
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 2, 2015 14:24:35 GMT -5
I also want to keep deranged, violent people from owning guns. Sometimes the needs of society overshadow the rights of the few. This is why we make drivers pass a vision test and a driving test before they are allowed to drive. We don't want any old jackass out there behind the wheel of a car. And if you let a drunk/unpermitted/blind/incompetent person borrow your car and he kills a bus full of nuns, you're on the hook for it - should be the same for people who let deranged violent people get their hands on guns, too. Pretty damn simple, unless you've sucked down the NRA Kool Aid to the point you think any limits of gun ownership is a threat to liberty and the American way. Driving or getting a driving license is not a constitutional right Having a gun isn't, either - if you're a felon, you're not allowed to own one. Should be the same for mentally ill people who have shown violent tendencies. I've seen parents prosecuted for allowing their children to have access to weapons, when the kid accidentally kills himself or someone else, so clearly there is no constitutional right to leave your guns laying around where ever anyone can get them. Why shouldn't we prosecute people like the Sandy Hook mom who kept an arsenal in her home where her clearly unbalanced son had easy access to it? She was just as responsible for what her son did as he was.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,898
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 2, 2015 14:35:45 GMT -5
Quite a leap there, suggesting that I want to deprive all mentally ill people from freedom of speech and freedom of religion just because I want to prevent some of them from being armed. I want to deprive mentally ill people with violent tendencies from having access to weapons. That's all I want to do. This isn't a constitutional issue. It's a safety issue. You wouldn't let toddlers or old people with dementia have guns, either. Why would you think it's ok to allow mentally ill people who have expressed violent statements have weapons? Not all mentally ill people. The bulk of MI people are either not murderous or they are on medication that controls their destructive thoughts. I only want to target those people that end up on the nightly news with their googly eyes, looking bat shit crazy, and all their neighbors are telling the media "Yep I knew sooner or later he was going to blow." This is exactly like the bartender law. A bartender can sell alcohol to an alcoholic, as long as the alcoholic isn't smashed already. A bartender is only obligated to stop one type of person from buying more alcohol - the person who is already falling down drunk. The person living with someone with a mental illness is not obligated to keep his weapons locked up if that person is not exhibiting murderous intent. But if you have a lot of weapons and your son is clearly delusional and obsessed with first person shooter video games, you should have a legal obligation to prevent your son from being able to get at your guns. For instance, in the Sandy Hook case, the mom had a stash of weapons at the house where her clearly troubled son lived. Wouldn't it have been nice if she kept all those guns in a gun safe at the shooting range? We could ask her, but she was the first person her crazy ass son killed, before he took his guns to the elementary school. The ONLY way to do that is to have them watched 24/7 bc even if you completely limit someone's ability to buy a gun legally, it is way too easy in US to buy one illegally. And no laws can help with that. If I'm not mistaken, all the most recent mass murders have been done by people who bought their guns through legal means. In fact, the shooter in Louisiana drove over to Alabama to make his purchases because he knew Louisiana was tougher on gun sales than Alabama was. Not everyone knows an illegal gun dealer. Everyone knows how to do a google search and find legal gun dealers - even the violently mentally ill people can. I'm not a big proponent of doing nothing at all because there is still going to be a loophole. We've done nothing at all and the number of mass murders continues to rise. Let's actually attempt to change this one damn thing and see what happens. I don't think it can possibly do anything except help limit violent people getting their hands on guns.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 2, 2015 14:40:52 GMT -5
So, let's not mention the killer's name and let's not mention the tragedies at all? That way there won't be any "Oh, how tragic, oh how terrible, let us pray" whatsoever. Let's ignore the problem completely by not talking about it? If we ignore it, it will go away? No actually, I don't think that would be effective. These asshats are looking for glory. They largely seem to be rage filled, young, white males, with mental health issues. I don't think not publishing their names is a solution. Modern "journalism" is pretty much tabloid bullshit. So even if one of two of the big news networks set it as policy to not publish, another one will see the opportunity for ratings, and will publish the info to get the scoop. The fact remains thought (sic) that the American public seems content to lap this shit up as entertainment, gnash and wail, but ultimately do jack shit about actually trying to fix the problem. We can't even TALK about possible solutions without parts of the country freaking the hell out and screaming about their constitutional rights being infringed. I don't really think the problem of rampage shooters is as easy as "oh well if we do X it will fix it." It's a multifaceted problem, likely requiring a complex solution. Unfortunately, our country is controlled by morons who are only capable of talking in soundbites, and a population that doesn't seem to be able to think in anything but black and white. a stinging indictment of US culture, legal and political issues, and media, but largely accurate.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,898
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 2, 2015 14:46:35 GMT -5
That's exactly my point. These guys are deranged not stupid. They want to make a statement and be remembered when they're gone. They know that a mass shooting will do that, so that's how they go out. Our media and our populace feeds it. Gun control isn't the problem. Us giving these sickos exactly what they want after the fact is the problem. We can either argue about gun control, which is the means of these attacks, or we can have a serious discussion about the root cause. So far all I see from our elected leaders is a lot of squabbling over the means. None of which is going to go anywhere, we all know that, so we can all watch it unfold again in about six months. It's sick. I agree. They're mentally ill and commit the mass murders to become infamous. I think this would be easy to fix. The media never reports the name of a juvenile offender unless a judge has approved it. Can't we make a law that in a mass murder case, the media cannot report the name of the murderer or any personal details about him/her? They can state 'a mass murderer killed 10 people today in Virginia, and ended up being shot dead in the street by police.' They can report on the victims and the details surrounding the shooting, but not anything about the murderer. Of course, some info would get out via the internet, from unofficial sources, but this would keep the endless stories about the murderer from broadcasting from every TV and newspaper. Might take the wind out of some of the crazy people's sails.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Oct 2, 2015 15:11:22 GMT -5
The United States sucks something awful when it comes to providing proper care and services to our mentally ill. It plain and simple sucks. We have failed those people so miserably. How about instead of first worrying whether or not they can get guns, we worry about treating their conditions properly? How about we worry about the access to mental health care and the facilities to house those who need it during their treatment? Then we can worry about the guns because maybe....just maybe....if we take care of our sick people, that would take care of the problem. It's not an all-encompassing solution, but it's at least a start rather than the same old crap that's rehashed over and over and doing absolutely no good whatsoever.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,898
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 2, 2015 17:26:37 GMT -5
Not to mention if you say that mentally ill people can't own guns, I'm sure more than a few will choose not to seek treatment. ETA... man it's stupid internet vocabulary fail day. I've made the you're/your mistake and now the chose/choose... is it time to go home yet! Parents/siblings/coworkers could report mentally ill people who are making threats and behaving erratically to the police, and the person could have the choice of going in for an evaluation or having his ability to legally purchase fire arms put on hold. Yes, someone might report someone who isn't mentally ill but only blowing off steam, but in that case, they would only have to visit a psychiatrist to straighten it out and gain back the ability to purchase legal weapons. And even if the psychiatrist drug his feet, or even initially rejected him, I'd rather error on the side of caution than continue to let violent, deranged people have easy access to weapons.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,499
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 2, 2015 17:42:05 GMT -5
Not to mention if you say that mentally ill people can't own guns, I'm sure more than a few will choose not to seek treatment. ETA... man it's stupid internet vocabulary fail day. I've made the you're/your mistake and now the chose/choose... is it time to go home yet! Change Monday to Friday?
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Oct 2, 2015 17:46:26 GMT -5
Oops. I guess I have four guns. My FIL (since deceased) gave me an old 22 he used for plinking squirrels and asked me to have it repaired. The shell ejection mechanism was jamming. Since he was starting to fire the gun from inside the house (through open windows) and scaring the bejezus out of my MIL I took my time, and I guess it never ended up happening.
So I have an old semi- functional 22 rifle kicking around too. And I am part of the problem. And, by the way, this is all totally legal. These guns are registered?
|
|
Willing Sniper
Junior Member
Joined: Nov 12, 2012 14:20:36 GMT -5
Posts: 120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"http://i68.tinypic.com/2np1cx.jpg","color":""}
|
Post by Willing Sniper on Oct 2, 2015 17:47:54 GMT -5
I think we should make it mandatory for everyone over the age of 18 to carry a loaded weapon, and let the really unstable kill each other.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Oct 2, 2015 18:47:38 GMT -5
<----- waiting for a few certain posters to tell us that if everyone was armed and you could conceal carry on a collage campus, someone would have taken down the gunman first. They may not have needed to be carrying...but it state in articles I've read that this area is a big gun-ownership area yet the school had a big sign on it that read "no guns allowed"
Probably not the best thing to post on a building, especially if someone is looking to kill a lot of people...maybe?
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Oct 2, 2015 18:52:00 GMT -5
Not to mention if you say that mentally ill people can't own guns, I'm sure more than a few will choose not to seek treatment. ETA... man it's stupid internet vocabulary fail day. I've made the you're/your mistake and now the chose/choose... is it time to go home yet! Parents/siblings/coworkers could report mentally ill people who are making threats and behaving erratically to the police, and the person could have the choice of going in for an evaluation or having his ability to legally purchase fire arms put on hold. Yes, someone might report someone who isn't mentally ill but only blowing off steam, but in that case, they would only have to visit a psychiatrist to straighten it out and gain back the ability to purchase legal weapons. And even if the psychiatrist drug his feet, or even initially rejected him, I'd rather error on the side of caution than continue to let violent, deranged people have easy access to weapons. Alright...Happyhoix is obviously crazy and going to hurt someone. The police will be by soon...make sure you do everything they say and make all arrangements to see a psychiatrist (an approved one, of course...that can see you in about 3 months. And until then you will have to stay in a confined area under guard and medicated. I hope you don't miss too much work. Oh, and I hope there is someone to watch your kids while you're away. And I hope your job is still there for you when you get cleared by the psychiatrist.). That cool?
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Oct 2, 2015 19:08:53 GMT -5
I'm not a big proponent of doing nothing at all because there is still going to be a loophole. We've done nothing at all and the number of mass murders continues to rise. Let's actually attempt to change this one damn thing and see what happens. I don't think it can possibly do anything except help limit violent people getting their hands on guns.
However, all of the people who have have been involved in mass shootings have had no incidents of being 'violent'. So how do you plan on identifying these people?
Many of the people who have done seem to walk to a different drummer.....a lot of people do. Are you going to persecute all people who are different? How do you define different? If you look back through the shooters, some were bullied....do you shut down all kids who were bullied? That's going to be a HUGE portion of the population. What about guys who are heavily into reality games? Guys that get turned down repeatedly for dates?
ALL of these are attributes of the guys that have gone on shooting rampages, but 99.999% of these people don't get pissed off enough to try to get revenge.
I think that the rhetoric here is interesting. It's easy enough to say "limit violent people getting their hands on guns', but a hell of a lot harder to define those people - especially if they have shown no violent tendencies in the past.
My crystal ball has 20/20 hindsight, like most. The same crystal ball's foresight sucks though.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Oct 2, 2015 19:11:48 GMT -5
Not to mention if you say that mentally ill people can't own guns, I'm sure more than a few will choose not to seek treatment. ETA... man it's stupid internet vocabulary fail day. I've made the you're/your mistake and now the chose/choose... is it time to go home yet! Parents/siblings/coworkers could report mentally ill people who are making threats and behaving erratically to the police, and the person could have the choice of going in for an evaluation or having his ability to legally purchase fire arms put on hold. Yes, someone might report someone who isn't mentally ill but only blowing off steam, but in that case, they would only have to visit a psychiatrist to straighten it out and gain back the ability to purchase legal weapons. And even if the psychiatrist drug his feet, or even initially rejected him, I'd rather error on the side of caution than continue to let violent, deranged people have easy access to weapons. Erratic how? Who defines erratic? Is it erratic to play video games 16 hours/day? Is it erratic to display the Confederate flag? You are asking a whole lot of people to be evaluated for erratic behavior. Hell, I'm sure that you have behaviors that some might think erratic, but they are normal to YOU.
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Oct 2, 2015 20:00:26 GMT -5
Just to point one thing out- this was NOT a 'gun free zone'. There were people carrying concealed- this is one of them:
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 2, 2015 20:04:23 GMT -5
Not to mention if you say that mentally ill people can't own guns, I'm sure more than a few will choose not to seek treatment. ETA... man it's stupid internet vocabulary fail day. I've made the you're/your mistake and now the chose/choose... is it time to go home yet! i'm not worried about all mental illness. just the kind that leads to violence.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Oct 2, 2015 20:17:40 GMT -5
The thing is, the right to bear arms is the second amendment. The founders of our very society put the right to bear arms up there with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. In other words, it's a fundamental right, regardless of how you feel about it.
There's no way to stop mass shootings without turning the U.S into a police state.
It's a logical fallacy to assume that creating more laws will stop gun violence. By their very definition, criminals don't follow the law. The only gun laws that will be effective are those who choose to follow them, e.g. the law biding citizens.
I'm also confused as to why the "war on guns" will be any more effective than the war on drugs. People will just turn to the black market if they can't get their guns through legal means.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Oct 2, 2015 20:19:20 GMT -5
I don't necessarily agree with arming everyone. But I can see how if your goal is to kill as many people as possible in a mass shooting, a "gun free zone" would make a tantalizing target.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,499
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 2, 2015 20:24:05 GMT -5
The thing is, the right to bear arms is the second amendment. The founders of our very society put the right to bear arms up there with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. In other words, it's a fundamental right, regardless of how you feel about it. There's no way to stop mass shootings without turning the U.S into a police state. It's a logical fallacy to assume that creating more laws will stop gun violence. By their very definition, criminals don't follow the law. The only gun laws that will be effective are those who choose to follow them, e.g. the law biding citizens. I'm also confused as to why the "war on guns" will be any more effective than the war on drugs. People will just turn to the black market if they can't get their guns through legal means. So in summary, we have to continue living with mass shootings.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Oct 2, 2015 20:23:46 GMT -5
Not to mention if you say that mentally ill people can't own guns, I'm sure more than a few will choose not to seek treatment. ETA... man it's stupid internet vocabulary fail day. I've made the you're/your mistake and now the chose/choose... is it time to go home yet! Parents/siblings/coworkers could report mentally ill people who are making threats and behaving erratically to the police, and the person could have the choice of going in for an evaluation or having his ability to legally purchase fire arms put on hold. Yes, someone might report someone who isn't mentally ill but only blowing off steam, but in that case, they would only have to visit a psychiatrist to straighten it out and gain back the ability to purchase legal weapons. And even if the psychiatrist drug his feet, or even initially rejected him, I'd rather error on the side of caution than continue to let violent, deranged people have easy access to weapons. Are you ok with restricting the metally ill's right to freedom of speech? Or the right to a speedy and fair trial? I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you... but you're tampering with a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution. And you're asking people with no psychological training or experience to evaluate others around them. I'm saying this issue is more complex than you might think.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Oct 2, 2015 20:25:22 GMT -5
The thing is, the right to bear arms is the second amendment. The founders of our very society put the right to bear arms up there with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. In other words, it's a fundamental right, regardless of how you feel about it. There's no way to stop mass shootings without turning the U.S into a police state. It's a logical fallacy to assume that creating more laws will stop gun violence. By their very definition, criminals don't follow the law. The only gun laws that will be effective are those who choose to follow them, e.g. the law biding citizens. I'm also confused as to why the "war on guns" will be any more effective than the war on drugs. People will just turn to the black market if they can't get their guns through legal means. So in summary, we have to continue living with mass shootings. Yes, I think so. It's the price of living in a free society. Do you think the war on guns will be any more effective than the war on drugs?
|
|