Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you can't understand such a simple concept, there is no way I can explain that water is wet to you.
I understood what you meant. my reply was sarcasm and your point is completely pointless. EVERY death is assisted. There are no unassisted deaths in this world. You die of old age... age assisted in your death. You die of cancer, cancer assisted in your death. My point still stands that the spoon/obesity analogy being compared to a gun related death is moronic.
unfortunately we don't have the psych care that our country used to have decades ago - nutjobs/whackjobs were hospitalized years ago but that access is no longer available....our country no longer can afford it.
I don't think that was a budget decision, but a humanitarian goal based policy, IIRC
the thought was that locking up the ill was inhumane
I see what you did there...... You equated mass shootings with ghetto hood culture knowing full well that they are two separate issues. Please keep this debate intellectually honest.
no, I know plenty of suburban affluent kids who also talk and think in this manner.
Point being was that reaching for a firearm to resolve conflict should not be the solution of choice.
That will do nothing to prevent a suicide mass shooter and you know it. They must be identified and prevented from buying a gun or getting a gun.
And how do you propose to do that? Make more laws that don't work? Sorry, I'm not willing to sacrifice an individual right afforded to me by the Constitution, because some random nutjob went postal!
unfortunately we don't have the psych care that our country used to have decades ago - nutjobs/whackjobs were hospitalized years ago but that access is no longer available....our country no longer can afford it.
I so agree with this..plus the way the laws appear to outline..it's only when someone is deemed "Unfit" or declared a threat to disown life and others..declared by some court..does even any RED flag gets logged in. Just maybe..tweeking this to when someone under counselling, or psychiatric care..and voices any tendency of violence ( including family members/teachers/or anyone who witnesses such behaviours i.e. domestic violence or violence in workplace/schools/public forums)..be put on a HOLD for any gun purchases..until it can be declared by medical expert..clearing him or her.
Then of course IF same person goes "OFF" again..simple report to that expert ( as they are on record of such a clearance)..immediately kicks in same "HOLD".. There simply has to be a happy medium on this
And how do you propose to do that? Make more laws that don't work? Sorry, I'm not willing to sacrifice an individual right afforded to me by the Constitution, because some random nutjob went postal!
exactly, and IMHO nor should we give up essential liberty for a feel good, knee jerk reaction (ie further regulation) to a loon's poor choices in life.
I don't think that was a budget decision, but a humanitarian goal based policy, IIRC
the thought was that locking up the ill was inhumane
How has that been working?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
