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.
Of course they do but the percentage of gun crime is very low and the murder rate is equally low. There's a correlation between handgun ownership and murder rates. The more people have guns, the more they will want to use them, the more violent the society becomes.
Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.
Any alienillegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa. Legal non-immigrant aliens may possess guns if they have a current, valid hunting license.
Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner. (added 1996)
Of course they do but the percentage of gun crime is very low and the murder rate is equally low. There's a correlation between handgun ownership and murder rates. The more people have guns, the more they will want to use them, the more violent the society becomes.
Banning firearms does not stop gun crime then???
It just makes it illegal for law abiding people to own firearms....
How does that make it safer if criminals will still be armed?
Its a false poll (forgot the fallacy exactly), but criminally insane are supposed to be remanded to custody. Hence the criminal coupled with the insane.
The shooter in Tuscon has a long history of demonstrating symptoms of mental illness. This is true of most perpetrators of violent, mass attacks, rarely are the attacks the first indication that these people are a danger to others. I'm using the term "criminally insane", maybe there is a more appropriate term in todays mental health lexicon. If so, let me know and I'll change it.
My question is, what do we do about it? Can we recognize the symptoms of those that are more likely to kill others, and involentarily confine them? Mandate treatment?
Or should we take away one of many possible tools that a criminally insane person may use? Even if doing so infringes upon the rights of the vast majority of the owners of such a tool that aren't using it for evil?
Or do we just live with the status quo?
We just live with the knowledge that there are people out there wanting to hurt & kill. Their sanity really shouldn't matter. The biggest issue is reluctance of modern people to take matters into their own hands. If the next 4 or 5 people who tried this were shot down where they stand within seconds of starting killing these things would mostly just stop.
As long as they can kill until they are done it will continue. These are mentally disturbed people, but not stupid.
Gun ownership should be severely restricted or better yet, totally banned. That is the only way the US can become as safe as other developed nations. Americans have to realize that guns are the root of the problem, not the other way around.
I like it the way it is, you can always move to a safer country. I cant move to a more free one.
Of course they do but the percentage of gun crime is very low and the murder rate is equally low. There's a correlation between handgun ownership and murder rates. The more people have guns, the more they will want to use them, the more violent the society becomes.
Theres also a much lower rate of people defending themselves sucessfully against crime. Regardless of the crime rate in the USA you can do something about it if attacked, in those other countries even though more rare if you do become a target the outcome is pretty clear, you lose.
More people sucessfully defend themselves with guns in America than can be counted. Why would that be a bad thing?
The shooter in Tuscon has a long history of demonstrating symptoms of mental illness. This is true of most perpetrators of violent, mass attacks, rarely are the attacks the first indication that these people are a danger to others. I'm using the term "criminally insane", maybe there is a more appropriate term in todays mental health lexicon. If so, let me know and I'll change it.
My question is, what do we do about it? Can we recognize the symptoms of those that are more likely to kill others, and involentarily confine them? Mandate treatment?
Or should we take away one of many possible tools that a criminally insane person may use? Even if doing so infringes upon the rights of the vast majority of the owners of such a tool that aren't using it for evil?
Or do we just live with the status quo?
IF the school had reported him to the local police, instead of the campus police, this may have been prevented.
Arizona has laws on the books that allow for people to be taken against their will to a mental health professional for analysis.
That wasn't done. It should have been, even without the benefit of hindsight. I watched the 60 minutes episode last night covering him, the dude was bat **** crazy, and was that way for at least the last year.
We should control people like this. If they aren't insane, and a mental health professional deems them normal enough, then they'll be released, no harm no foul.
Gun control, well, I wouldn't put up a fight for 30 round glock clips being banned, but I'm not going to go out and campaign for it either. I see no reason for a clip to be that big. Personally, if I want 30 rounds, I'll carry three clips. I don't want to tell other people what to do also, which is why I don't care if someone buys a 30 round clip. If thats your passion, fine with me.
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.