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.
Take away the guns, they'll use bomb. Take away the bomb, they'll use a knife. Take away the knife, they'll use a bat. Etc. etc.
Perhaps, but... bombs ARE illegal and relatively rare in the US. Where's the outrage over the bomb ban, nevermind regulation? Guns that rapidly spray bullets are akin to a bomb (a bomb that can be aimed) and are perfectly legal. And sadly, commonplace.
And using a knife? Much, much harder and slower to kill someone with a knife. Not a single child died in the recent knife attack in China.
You are absolutely correct in that there will always be people with mental health issues who attempt to carry out these horrific events. But in the US we make it especially quick and easy.
I don't actually disagree with you. This horrible event is one of those things in life we all desperately want to understand but can't no matter how hard we try.
Should this kid have been institutionalized if he had never shown signs of violence in the past? No, of course not. I myself am introverted and "nerdy". Introverted people are generally gentle, but in a few cases something snaps and no one really knows what that is.
My point was we don't have any mechanisms in place to separate people who display signs of violence caused by mental illness from society. The way things work now is that they have to commit a crime before anything can be down. Maybe there is no better option in terms of maintaining our rights, but it bothers me that our society allows mentally ill people to roam amongst the normal people even though police or mental healthcare providers know they are a potential danger.
But yeah, I get the qualms about institutionalizing people. It does smack of a "Minority Report" type of situation.
Nor should it. I truly believe the only thing that stands between us and a dictatorship is the fact that the citizenry is armed.
What we also need to start addressing is that extremist rhetoric like the person I'm quoting, along with gun fetishes, are ALSO mental illnesses, "abnormal" and dangerous.
Spending day after day of your life fearing a boogie man is a part of problem here.
I'll never understand why people think that "their freedoms are taken away" by passing laws to make it harder for crazy people to get guns.
We already do the same thing for cars to make sure that we keep everybody safe. Anybody can get a car, you just need to prove that you are capable of using it responsibly.
You're way off base on that one...there in no law that says you have to prove that you are capable of using it responsibly to buy a car...
What we also need to start addressing is that extremist rhetoric like the person I'm quoting, along with gun fetishes, are ALSO mental illnesses, "abnormal" and dangerous.
Spending day after day of your life fearing a boogie man is a part of problem here.
Interesting because the statement you point to as 'extremist rhetoric' is very much like the following quote from Thomas Jefferson:
The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government - Thomas Jefferson
Something seriously doesn't add up. In today's news it's reported that Lanza's mother had warned the kid's babysitter "never to turn your back on him, not even to go to the bathroom." This same mother takes both her sons to the shooting range regularly and keeps all those weapons in the house. I'm starting to think the mother, despite her reported "heart of gold," was a real nut job herself. Maybe so much so that she sent her son off the deep end. Something obviously snapped, and she imo is an accomplice.
What we also need to start addressing is that extremist rhetoric like the person I'm quoting, along with gun fetishes, are ALSO mental illnesses, "abnormal" and dangerous.
Spending day after day of your life fearing a boogie man is a part of problem here.
Of course, there are others who fail to realize the primary purpose of the second amendment is not to protect recreational gun use or even defense from criminals.
Actually, you are wrong. Automatic weapons are not legal for civilians in the US unless an applicant submits to a very lengthy and expensive permitting process.
You have almost that entire statement incorrect.
Full-auto are perfectly legal to purchase as long as they were produced before 1986. All you have to do is submit to additional background check and pay a $200 tax. The wait times due to the BATFE being slow are about 6 months. The only expensive part is the gun itself and that is due to supply and demand, not "permitting" fees.
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.
