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.
I don't support driving while drunk. I think a finger-print activated breath analyzer in cars would help prevent this. The car would only start if the person passes the breath analysis. Likewise, I think a thorough psychological evaluation should be passed before one can own a gun. I don't support psychotic or mentally ill running around with assault weapons.
Stop and Frisk is a conservative initiative.
Driving isn't an enumerated right, but you would be fine with mental health every time a woman wants an abortion or the requirement to purchase a permit to vote right?
At what point did I advocate giving thugs or the mentally ill weapons of any kind? And exactly what is an "assault weapon"? As for being helpless, you're the one that advocates making law abiding citizens helpless. Personally, I prefer that responsible adults have the choice of whether or not to defend themselves.
The better question is how many lived because he was on the premises?
Why do you have such an issue with actually protecting our children from lunatics rather than protected the lunatics who attack our children from responsible citizens? Do you really love your anti-gun stance so much that you are willing to sacrifice children in order to continue supporting laws which clearly don't work? Once again, in case you missed it, since the passage of the GFSZA the average number of school shootings has doubled. By any standard, if you pass a law meant to protect children and it actually puts them in more danger than they were before it is a failed law.
I have no issue with mentally sound people having a gun, it is the mentally disturbed owning assault firearms I have a problem with. Why is the right so determined to not screen gun owners for mental illness? Are, in fact, the very people we don't want to have guns, the people who are fighting against mental health screenings?
As far as an armed guard at schools; they provide a false sense of security unless we have one in every classroom, bathroom, cafeteria, school bus, gym, locker room, etc.... Obviously the shooter will pick whatever area the armed guard is not at the time and open fire with a semi-automatic.
The shooters at all of these massacres have broken "gun" laws to get their weapons. Do you really think more laws will stop other crazies from getting guns and shooting innocent people?
What will stop them is a citizenry well enough armed to get the shooter before he gets them.
I have no issue with mentally sound people having a gun, it is the mentally disturbed owning assault firearms I have a problem with. Why is the right so determined to not screen gun owners for mental illness? Are, in fact, the very people we don't want to have guns, the people who are fighting against mental health screenings?
As far as an armed guard at schools; they provide a false sense of security unless we have one in every classroom, bathroom, cafeteria, school bus, gym, locker room, etc.... Obviously the shooter will pick whatever area the armed guard is not at the time and open fire with a semi-automatic.
Yes, you do. Your arguments are fallacious and barely concealed attempts at promoting total firearm confiscation. You can't even admit that the GFZSA is a complete failure; you'd rather twist around the topic and push for even further gun control laws.
Every time there is a shooting in the US (except Chicago), there is aa call for "new" gun laws.
Can anyone tell me what new gun law would have prevented the Oregon shooting, or any other shooting?
A law against divorce? Do the research on the number of children (both black and white) born into and/or raised in single mother led households, the high school drop out rate / suicide rate / poverty rate / gang affiliation rate of children of all colors raised by single mothers, the number of teenage mass murderers who have been raised in single parent households.
'Course - you asked for a gun law, but guns in the hands of law abiding citizens are not the problem. And there will never be a law against divorce (and I'm not advocating for one). But (as usual) we're working the wrong problem. The root cause of a lot of our criminal problems (not just f'd-in-the-head white teenage shooters) is not a gun. There's always been plenty of guns in this country. Time was you could take your hunting rifle to school and either leave it in your truck or leave it in the closet in your classroom so you could go hunting after school.
There were plenty of guns back then. There are plenty of guns now. So what's changed? Answer THAT question and you're on the right track. But in this country we don't want to answer THAT question.
My perspective is simply that, mine. I'm not talking from a conservative or liberal slant. This is just where I stand. I do not believe there is any law that could stop mass shootings. Sure, we could ban guns. However, if cocaine can be smuggled into this country, so can guns.
Something more. Jamaica tried stricter gun control laws. One politician said there was no place for guns in Jamaica. And yet, Jamaica has one of the highest murder rates in North America.
And you have a right perspective, because simply put, no law on the books now or in the future, will stop someone from doing harm, when they deem fit.
And having family members murdered for no reason at all, I understand this more now. We were told to our faces, how easy it is to get guns from the murderer himself. In fact he also said if not a gun, then a knife, a hammer, a tool, fists, or hands. I wanted to know, and I got my answer.
But he was a felon many times over, and let out again and again, our Judges have a lot to do with this mess also. While out he killed my family member, and I will never ever forget as long as I live.
When someone has a strong desire and intent to do harm, sad but true they will find the means to do it.
And you have a right perspective, because simply put, no law on the books now or in the future, will stop someone from doing harm, when they deem fit.
And having family members murdered for no reason at all, I understand this more now. We were told to our faces, how easy it is to get guns from the murderer himself. In fact he also said if not a gun, then a knife, a hammer, a tool, fists, or hands. I wanted to know, and I got my answer.
But he was a felon many times over, and let out again and again, our Judges have a lot to do with this mess also. While out he killed my family member, and I will never ever forget as long as I live.
When someone has a strong desire and intent to do harm, sad but true they will find the means to do it.
There was a time when I thought that "less guns = more safe". Having been assaulted multiple times by people who weren't armed, I should have known better. In fact, one crime I was a victim of , I got strong-armed. I didn't know whether or not said persons had a weapon. I was put in a head-lock and was ganged up on. Money stolen.
I'm sorry about what happened to your family members. A friend of mine was murdered by her ex-boyfriend. That is the closest I've come to having a close family member murdered. He used a shotgun, but he could have used anything else.
This is what I know. A car can be more deadly than a bullet, for this reason. A bullet can kill, but a bullet has to hit you in certain places to kill you. A car is bigger, heavier, and even a small amount of force from a car can cause severe injury.
Another recent incident I consider is the hammer attacks in St. Louis. No guns used. People were getting killed with hammers.
Interesting that you mention the judge. I wonder what kinds of felonies that said killer had on his record. I know California has the three strikes law. For this reason, some criminals go to other states, because they pretty much know they can't live crime free. When someone has no respect for the law, not much can be done. Now, some laws are meant to be broken, specifically if they violate human rights. However, when a person has no respect for law and order, said person will do ugly things, and won't care what the consequences are.
Now, this was in Texas, a state where the death penalty is used more than any other state. This thug admitted he had no remorse for committing murder, and even asked to die. When a person has an "I don't care if I live or die" mentality, even the death penalty won't scare said person.
I have no issue with mentally sound people having a gun, it is the mentally disturbed owning assault firearms I have a problem with. Why is the right so determined to not screen gun owners for mental illness? Are, in fact, the very people we don't want to have guns, the people who are fighting against mental health screenings?
As far as an armed guard at schools; they provide a false sense of security unless we have one in every classroom, bathroom, cafeteria, school bus, gym, locker room, etc.... Obviously the shooter will pick whatever area the armed guard is not at the time and open fire with a semi-automatic.
unless one has been adjudicated as being mentally defective, there is NO reason to deny them the right to keep and bear arms. we have to follow proper due process. and forcing people to be screened for a mental illness they might have, without proof by the way, is an infringement on ones rights. sorry but you lose on this.
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.
