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.
Well, let's just suppose (we don't know but one could guess based on the deed) that she has a history of mental issues. If she had ever been written one script, that could be in a database and she could have been denied a gun purchase. That WOULD have made it harder to kill her kids. Not impossible, but harder.
No, it would have made it harder for her to buy a gun legally
The Mom could have waited until the daughter was asleep and wacked here with a meat cleaver.
[it's the person who snapped, not the gun]
I understand this and I did not say I was for gun control. I understand the person is mentally ill and not the gun!
I was simply explaining why some people feel gun control could have possibly prevented this. Although she certainly could have obtained a gun illegally.
But you have to admit that even "wacking her when she slept' would been a lot harder and the poor girl may have been able to fight back. With the gun she had no chance. Very tragic.
No, it would have made it harder for her to buy a gun legally
Ok, agreed. I don't know how hard it is to buy a gun illegally, as I've never purchased a gun, either way. Can we agree that sans gun it would have been harder to kill her kids?
Of course you realize that I'm talking about severe beatings, such as "beating the be-jesus" out of children, rather than the spankings it sounds like you received as a child. That's another debate, I suppose. But out and out beatings are illegal for good reason. And those who become physically violent towards children often are emotionally abusive as well. Jails are full of the results.
Ok, agreed. I don't know how hard it is to buy a gun illegally, as I've never purchased a gun, either way. Can we agree that sans gun it would have been harder to kill her kids?
No, we can't just say that because it's not true but we can agree to disagree on the issue.
No, we can't just say that because it's not true but we can agree to disagree on the issue.
Ok, I am ok with agreeing to disagree, but I would think it would have had to have been a lot more "hands on" to do the deed (sorry) and that this might have been a deterrent to actually killing the children, were it not for a gun.
What they're getting at is nonsensical. It's like saying if we had stricter driving laws then a person wouldn't have killed someone when they were DUI. One has nothing to do with the other.
What kind of gun law could we have possibly had that would have prevented this woman from killing her children?
Well obviously a longer "cooling off period" -she purchased the gun 5 days prior-what if she had to wait a month. Would the murders have happened?
Maybe someone would have noticed the lady was off and intervened?
Maybe she would have sought help? Maybe her mother would have come over and helped her out or whatever. Who knows.
But disclosure: I am NOT for gun control but just offering input.
I understand this and I did not say I was for gun control. I understand the person is mentally ill and not the gun!
I was simply explaining why some people feel gun control could have possibly prevented this. Although she certainly could have obtained a gun illegally.
But you have to admit that even "wacking her when she slept' would been a lot harder and the poor girl may have been able to fight back. With the gun she had no chance. Very tragic.
Of course you realize that I'm talking about severe beatings, such as "beating the be-jesus" out of children, rather than the spankings it sounds like you received as a child. That's another debate, I suppose. But out and out beatings are illegal for good reason.
I assumed she was exaggerating (I hope). I'm not advocating full-on beat downs either. Therefore, we are in agreement.
Ok, I am ok with agreeing to disagree, but I would think it would have had to have been a lot more "hands on" to do the deed (sorry) and that this might have been a deterrent to actually killing the children, were it not for a gun.
She could have poisoned them. It's happened before. If she was determined to kill her children, there is no law real or imagined that was going to stop her.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booya
Well obviously a longer "cooling off period" -she purchased the gun 5 days prior-what if she had to wait a month. Would the murders have happened?
Maybe someone would have noticed the lady was off and intervened?
Maybe she would have sought help? Maybe her mother would have come over and helped her out or whatever. Who knows.
But disclosure: I am NOT for gun control but just offering input.
I understand your point of view.
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.
