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.
Only if the "gun control" law is very intelligently written and only serves to keep guns out of the hands of crazy unstable people, and not the sane law-abiding ones. Any "compromise" that involves disarming everyone is akin to the U.S. becoming the next North Korea where despotic rule reigns supreme.
Anybody who actually fears the latter is a hallucinating nutburger. Nobody is suggesting"disarming everyone."
Wrong, HD: it's a very complex problem, and it will not be simply answered by fever-pitch emotionalism. I would NEVER use my assuaut rifle on any innocent person, nor, I'll suggest, will the literal tens of millions of fully legal owners.
Who ever claimed it wasn't a very complex problem?
But when the gun lobby starts whining about everybody being "disarmed" or that somebody is trying to ban all guns, they are being foaming goofballs.. and worse projecting. Nobody in favor of gun control is talking about appealing the 2nd Amendment.
Nobody.
But it is national insanity to allow them to be unregulated, uncontrolled, available to anybody and everybody of age... which is of course the NRA position.
If you believe that this kid in Connecticut should not have had access to an AR-15, then you believe in gun control. Everything else is details.
A killer will undoubtedly find the most efficient method... but that is about the only correlation.
Wrong.
A mentally ill person will use whatever is available. They have no general affection for "efficiency." It is obscene that we make it so easy for the thing that is available to be high capacity assault rifle.
A mentally ill person will use whatever is available. They have no general affection for "efficiency." It is obscene that we make it so easy for the thing that is available to be high capacity assault rifle.
That depends... there are different levels of crazy. And there are different levels of gun control.
And there is more than one way to skin the cat in regards to the mass killing issue.
That depends... there are different levels of crazy. And there are different levels of gun control.
Insert, "Duh" here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz
And there is more than one way to skin the cat in regards to the mass killing issue.
Add another here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz
What do you propose?
A serious discussion unblemished by frothing nincompoops wringing their hands about imaginary efforts to "disarm Americans" and repeal the 2nd Amendment.
A serious discussion unblemished by frothing nincompoops wringing their hands about imaginary efforts to "disarm Americans" and repeal the 2nd Amendment.
*insert another duh here*
Not because that's expected...but because that isn't a proposal...
Then you have a problem with a fever dream. Nobody in the government is suggesting a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
But ultimately that's what the anti-gun fringe wants. That's why instead of blaming the shooter they always blame the NRA. Little by little they use these tragedies to chip away at citizens' right to bear arms.
Secretly, the anti-gun fringe love it when tragedies like this happen. It helps to further their agenda. Sad, isn't it?
Is this where we studiously ignore that cutting mental health services to the bone was a key policy pf Blessed St. Reagan?
According to the link I posted which you clearly didn't read John Kennedy was also a part of the problem as well as the ACLU-
Contrary to popular perception, California Governor Ronald Reagan's signing of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act of 1967 was only one small part of a broad-based movement, starting in the late 1950s. The Kennedy Administration optimistically described how the days of long-term treatment were now past; newly-developed drugs such as chlorpromazine meant that two-thirds of the mentally ill "could be treated and released within 6 months."
No ~ I've heard it discussed over and over with the various talking heads on various shows.
Where does the OP get the idea that it is being ignored?
It IS being discussed ~ along with other ideas ~ about how to keep our society safe.
The OP's issue is likely that it isn't being presented as the absolute rational for the violence that s/he would like to see.
Anything to re-frame the argument away from more sensible regulations.
"But there is overwhelming epidemiological evidence that the vast majority of people with psychiatric disorders do not commit violent acts. Only about 4 percent of violence in the United States can be attributed to people with mental illness."
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.
