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 we're not comparing crimes, then there is no need for any additional screening on firearms purchases. If someone uses a firearm in a criminal manner it's a crime, and can be reactively punished. In the post you're referring too, DWI is reactively punished, however there are hundreds of deaths a year caused by people DWI, if we proactively screened car purchasers we might cut down the number of these deaths. This is the same position you're taking on firearms, but in relation to vehicle ownership.
I don't think you agree with taking that position on vehicles, so why do you take that position on firearms? If someone's drunk and mows down a line of 12 people waiting to see TDKR, you've got the same effect from a car as you had with someone with a gun.
You don't know that. You're assuming he's crazy, because you cannot imagine that anyone who is not crazy could act in the way he did. However it may well turn out that he is not crazy, Jeffrey Dahmer was adjudicated as sane, he killed around 20 or so people, injected some of their brains with sulphuric and hydrochloric acid while they were still alive, and ate parts of them, but he wasn't crazy. Which just goes to show, sometimes just because you think that what someone does is crazy, it doesn't mean that the person doing it is.
No, I use the DWI laws as a rebuttal for the premise that we should not enact laws simply because they don't catch everyone. I don't know how to make it any clearer.
Dahmer was found fit to stand trial. There is a difference. He was also found that he was capable of understanding right from wrong. These are different standards. He may have actually failed a mental health exam. I would hope so.
I don't think it would be too big of a deal to require everyone who wants to purchase a gun to be required to have a mental health screening. It is quite possible that we could identify some of the deranged people purchasing guns and reduce the possibility of what happened in Colorado from happening again.
Yes, I do. Evidently though, you do not or you cannot understand the process with is quite extensive and very long.
I do understand what is required to amend the constitution, although difficult it is not impossible. The thread is not about how difficult would it be to have these laws passed, but whether they should be in fact passed. As I said before, I don't think the law would be unconstitutional as we have already found laws that denied felons the right to own firearms to be constitutional. So it really is a moot point; however, even it were there is still a mechanism to make it Constitutional.
I question the general populace's need to own automatic or semi-automatic weapons. Or at the very least reduce the ammunition capacity of these weapons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikebnllnb
I guess sport takes president over human life.
really? apparently you have never been in a gun fight or you would never be making statements like these.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie
So everyone should be armed at all times in public in order to protect themselves from the insane?
why not? i also believe that law abiding citizens should be armed to protect themselves against criminals also.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2
How many innocent lives have to be lost to insane people with firearms before we do something?
how many innocent lives have to be lost to gangbangers and other criminals before people start shooting back at these idiots?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2
I don't believe there is a Constitutional problem. You can place restrictions on constitutional rights. Not all speech is protected under the constitution, and the restriction that felons not be allowed to own firearms has been found constitutional. This is certainly no different than not allowing felons to own firearms. However, even if there was an issue, which I don't believe there is, an amendment could fix that.
the reason there is no infringement of the second amendment in regards to criminals is because the criminals have lost their constitutional rights due to a felony conviction, and thus they can be forbidden from firearms ownership. same with the mentally incompetent.
I had an extremely loving good dear friend in the 90's. I loved her so very much, she was such a good person.
The person who killed her broke into her home, awoke her, and shot her in the head. It was later known, that the suspect murderer, found a old old gun, put it together, and that is what he used to kill her. How i wish i knew.
He then proceeded to do evil things to her body, stole her wallet, and got a bite to eat. He was mental, and when he realized what he had done in prison, he later killed himself.
I do believe you can be the most sane person, and something can trigger an emotion, that makes an otherwise sane person go crazy. And there are many mental people out there, not getting the medical attention they desperatly need.
That day still today, is etched in my heart, with such sorrow.
And i went thru such a period of anger, real anger, wanting to know why. I WAS mad at everyone everywhere. It took a long time before i got over that grief that should never had happened.
It came to the point that the anger was consuming a part of me, i did not even know, and i knew that was not good for my being emotionally, and that is when i started to grieve in the right sense of the way, and i then realized, i could not let that situation, consume my whole being.
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.