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.
In this situation, short of a full out gun ban, i dont see what would have stopped this guy from getting a gun.
He planned this for a long time, he didnt just buy the gun on a whim, he had some issues at his places of employment but as far as I know, a clean background, unless someone is arguing for a mandatory psych review before being able to purchase a gun which is a nonstarter, I dont know what could have been done.
Since the shooter is dead, I'll chalk this up a grieving father, forever denied justice, lashing out and trying to rationally deal with an irrational tragedy.
I'm not getting into a debate about guns on the back of this.
The father has a right to say whatever he likes. Freedoms apply to him also.
Psych evaluations are often useless. If the one performing them is anti-gun and thinks anyone wanting one is crazy, for example, no one would pass one.
This guy planned it out months in advance. He was not crazy. It was premeditated murder.
This is also a good point. This guy did not just snap and go nuts, he planned this for a long time, he predetermined his victims, no doubt he was a few french fries short of a Happy Meal but he's not someone who acted on a whim. This murder was setup methodically.
I'm not getting into a debate about guns on the back of this.
The father has a right to say whatever he likes. Freedoms apply to him also.
Sure they do.
And if people want to challenge his comments, they have the right to say whatever they want as well since he was the one that opened the door on a discussion about gun control.
America's freedoms are not so tenuous that they can't survive debate from people that have been traumatized by some pretty awful and tragic events.
For god's sake he said he's for the second ammendment and he just doesn't want crazy people to have easy access to guns. You know, because his daughter was just shot by one. I don't see him calling for anything that jeopardizes any sane person's 2nd ammendment rights.
It does because people fear the slippery slope that one restriction brings gun bans period.
And if people want to challenge his comments, they have the right to say whatever they want as well since he was the one that opened the door on a discussion about gun control.
The PP was not just talking about the dad's stance on gun control. He basically (and I paraphrase) said the dad was enjoying the fifteen minutes of fame and was happy to use his daughter's death to further his politics. I am 100% sure that is not the case. That's highly insulting and debatable commentary, and it's that assertion I am refuting.
I find it rather amusing that the gun control people posting on CD often bring up the idea of keeping guns out of the hands of "crazy" or "crazies" yet never stop to think how bigoted the use of those words are. Read the posts, see how and who uses those words. Then there are the terms like gun nuts used as derogatory ideas to describe people. These are the same that want influence over who can have a right and who cannot. Then, when those same types of words are used to describe them, outrage follows. Read for yourself.
It does because people fear the slippery slope that one restriction brings gun bans period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus
Fear away. Can't help you there if you're that insecure about your position.
There you go. That was a personal attack and unwarranted. They commented in general terms, you had to make it personal. Slippery slope proven.
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.