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.
WOW, I was reading the article 25 Deadliest Mass Shootings in U.S. last night and did a research on all these shooters. I found out almost all of them suffered from untreated mental illnesses.
I wonder why do some people always blame the guns after a mass shooting? Mental illness is often not to blame in mass shooting? Why?
why blame the firearm or the mental illness, why not just blame the criminal doing the shooting?
And the reason we think this is in any way possible is......??
But totally banning all guns from all persons, is the only way that will work.
And it introduces far more problems than it cures.
We know it's possible.
What you mean "We", Kimosabe?
I for one am quite sure it is NOT possible. Criminals, including wannabee criminals such as certain mentally ill people who want to shoot a bunch of people but haven't done it yet, will ALWAYS find a way to get a gun... unless there are no guns anywhere on the planet.
And even then, anyone with the cash to pay an unscupulous (or frightened) machinist, can get one anyway.
You'd have to be excessively naive to believe making laws has ANY effect on the people who break laws... especially murderers.
Quote:
Your insistence that a total ban is the only solution is just an NRA talking point that tries the frame the discussion.
TRANSLATION: I can't refute it, or even come close, so I'll try to pretend it's somehow not a "good question".
Quote:
A total ban isn't the only solution.
Correct. As I pointed out, a total ban creates far more problems than it cures... so it's no "solution" at all.
And no one has come up with anything else that has a prayer of working in the real world.
I don't think we need to Lock anybody up, just ban mentally ill from getting firearms. But then again, I am sure a lot of people still have problems with that.
They do, because you've yet to explain how the mentally ill will be identified, and what degree of mental illness , what kind of mental illness, will qualify a person for such a ban.
The problem is the abuse of the system that led to this very narrow set of legal rules to not allow people with mental illness access to guns.
And advocates for rights of the mentally ill are already out there in force.
So? We just give up? Or we try? If the lives of the innocent are important to us, then we have to try, don't we? We have to search for a balanced, rational approach. We have to accept that some restrictions on gun rights are permissible, while we work to protect those gun rights.
First step, somebody who have a diagnosed mentally ill. Currently in therapy or taking drugs. First step.
I said I have no answers but that would be my suggestion.
People go to therapy for anxiety disorders, loss of a child, divorce, a bout of depression due to death in the family.
mental health encompasses a wide range of short term and long term dealings which have nothing to do with violence or the need for social retribution.
And, God help us, we have among us some people who actually believe Government is the one we want making this next-to-impossible diagnosis. For ever citizen. Every time. That's kind of like enlisting a bull in a China shop, to create the delicate fine China in the first place. The idea isn't just impossible... it's insane.
That guy in Santa Barbara killed what, 7 people?
But he seems to have driven a hundred million others, nuts.
They do, because you've yet to explain how the mentally ill will be identified, and what degree of mental illness , what kind of mental illness, will qualify a person for such a ban.
Like I said, I don't have all these answers. I wish somebody can answer these questions.
First step, somebody who have a diagnosed mentally ill. Currently in therapy or taking drugs. First step.
I said I have no answers but that would be my suggestion.
In therapy for what???? Taking drugs to treat what????? If their "mental illness" is well-controlled, you are still for banning them from owning a weapon. Please define what mental illnesses you have an issue with.
How so? My arguments have been on the same premise
from the drop of the flag. It is you who have skirted around things, and just
spread the mess out over the counter. The laws and regulations I am addressing
ARE analogous to Jim Crow. They discriminate, blatantly, against a single group
of people, based on a single criteria, and are used to deny those people their
rights. So its not on the basis of skin tone..so what? So sorry ( not) to offend
your sensibilities, but if you had ever been on the receiving end of these
"laws" you would see the correlation. You label me specious, but not ONCE have
you adressed the issues that are the core of my posts.
I don't address your issues, or any of your other posts, because they're not worth my time.
Quote:
Instead, you flounce off into left field, spouting inanities, that only
serve to show a bigoted view of firearms owners. Happily advocating for further
discrimination and trampling of peoples rights, using incidents like this one ,
to justify yourself.
I thought, perhaps, by actually outlining CA gun restrictions, and the
manner in which they are applied, it might actually trigger a commentary, or at
least a question, as to the actual legitimacy of said "laws". And, how making
them even worse, would have stopped a guy like Rodgers. Instead, you reply with
righteous indignation to an accurate analogy, and want to say that, based on
that analogy, your arguments thus become irrefutable.
So, perhaps, if I simplify a bit....How, does singling out a specific
group of people, targeting them with "laws" designed to "legally" violate far
more than just 2a rights, confiscate their property, violate their privacy,
stigmatize them a d deny them legal recourse, stopping people like Rodgers from
committing acts of violence? Other than a giddy feeling that bigots get from
seeing their bigotry made law, that is.
Until you and your type of people get hung, raped, killed without accountability, denied housing, education and livelihood, picked up off the street and sent to prison, you have no case, nor any authority, to invoke Jim Crow. The sad thing about all this is that you're too damn ignorant to even understand why you're ignorant. But then again, you're the same back-country philosopher who defended Cliven Bundy's enlightened ideas on race.
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.
