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.
Sure, keep ignoring the problem, have government spend more money stripping away our rights & make our society worse in the process. Go stick your head back in the sand, the grown-ups are talking here.
You talk about not taking rights away from the gun owners in one breath but if you could take babies away from single mothers and sterilize people living in poverty you'd probably think that was just fine and dandy.. Many of your gun advocate friends (maybe you too) are calling to lock up anyone with a mental issue, whether they've committed a crime or not. Guess what. Other people have rights, too, not just gun owners.
Last edited by Wayland Woman; 12-18-2012 at 03:42 PM..
No I'm not willing to give up my freedoms for children. And frankly, I'm getting tired of the "do it for the kids" argument. In the progressive debate repertoire, "do it for the kids" is just behind the race card in terms of frequency of use.
You mean, unless they are unborn? Are you pro-choice?
The irrelevance of the deflections grows by leaps and bounds.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with Britain vs. the US. But if we were to humor you for a moment, how exactly does a US gun homicide rate 140 times higher than Britain's help make whatever irrelevant point you are trying to make?
Oh quit with the "irrelevance of the deflection" Read the posts, before you go off...
My comment was in response to the Pierce Morgan tape of which, he used the
Britain vs. US argument (ban hand guns) and went on about the M's of mentally ill Americans.
I didn't make that comparison, he did.
It's also illogical to think having armed guards at schools would not be a deterrent.
I'm cautious about holding the mental health field responsible. While we have tests for some mental health conditions, and we can perform scans and do work-ups on blood and brain chemistry, many mental issues aren't immediately recognizable. And how to treat someone can be debatable. Some doctors prefer using drugs as a last resort, other doctors see drugs as the threshold to get a patient to a semblance of normal. I guess my point is that "weird" isn't necessarily mentally ill. We're all weirdos to some degree. And yet when we start trying to define what is mentally normal, we invariably define what isn't. And that feels like a witch hunt. If we start penalizing people for their eccentricities, then we're making eccentric against the law, aren't we? And yet Albert Einstein was an eccentric. Mozart was an eccentric. Victor Hugo was an eccentric. Thomas Jefferson. Winston Churchill. Benjamin Franklin. All weirdos in their own way. All a little strange. Just like you and I are probably a little strange.
Cho may have been a lot strange. But I doubt that anyone before he started shooting thought he was strange enough or dangerous enough to do that. We really don't have any way to tell when someone is that dangerous. Red flags tell us they are strange, that they may have a disconnect with reality, that something isn't working. But they don't tell us that the person has disconnected from his humanity. You can't look at someone and know. Doctors can't know.
Two thumbs up. But didn't you get the memo that all shooters now have to be branded as complete lunatics in order to shift the blame from the gun fondlers?
Guess we will have to ask Pierce Morgan to ask one of his Beverly Hills neighbors.
Nice attempt at deflection, but as it happens, I loathe the Hollywood culture of violence as much as I loathe guns.
Of course, Hollywood produces all that crap because there are millions of ready consumers who eat it up. I wonder where all these generations of gun lovers who flock to these movies got the idea that guns solve problems and serve as status symbols? No doubt they come up with it in a complete vacuum.
What kind of a mother, who knows her son is mentally unstable, takes him for target practice, and allows unfettered access to these weapons to him? Doesn't lock the weapons up. That in itself is kind of goofy. Maybe she wasn't all there upstairs in the thinking department either.
Nancy Lanza was missing a few cards out of her deck. No wonder her husband divorced her. And she probably not only passed on the loony gene to her kid, she no doubt egged him on with this "end of the world" garbage.
It is kind of odd that those dice games that she played with her friends where people took turns hosting them at their homes never took place at her house.
I would love to see pics of the inside of her place.
I haven't read this whole thread, and it may have been mentioned....that 40% of gun sales do no background checks whatsoever. Forty percent.
You really can't justify this figure.
The only place this happens is in private sales from one individual to another and no one can estimate that number accurately.
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.
Sure, keep ignoring the problem, have government spend more money stripping away our rights & make our society worse in the process. Go stick your head back in the sand, the grown-ups are talking here.
No doubt they come up with it in a complete vacuum. 
