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.
And so in this case, you're relying on the honour system to keep guns out of the wrong hands. That is, Nancy Lanza should have known that her son was mentally ill and capable of murdering 27 people. Otherwise, she was not a responsible gun owner.
Do you see how your view of the gun world contains far too many fail points?
Do you see how yours only keeps guns out of legal law abiding citizens?
From what I've heard, which may or not be accurate based on the validity of news reporting right now, Nancy Lanza knew her son was mentally ill and it was identified by his school. My point is that it never should have gotten to that point. The identification of her son as someone mentally ill and dangerous would have made this whole scenario impossible. As I said before, more of the mass shooting killers were already known dangerous entities before they ever pulled the trigger.
And no, she was not a responsible gun owner but millions are responsible. Why must they all suffer? Why must they all be treated as criminals now? That is your suggestion.
Just how exactly will you screen these people? Not every mentally ill person will fail a simple written test. Then what do you do once our government has declared them mentally ill? Will they get the option of a retest? And how will you screen out people who were sane when they bought a gun, but years later they slowly went insane? Then can we do it for drivers licenses too?
These are some of the many reasons why fighting this problem from the mental health angle is completely worthless and destined for failure.
There are simply too many ways it can go wrong. The only way to fix it is to not allow such dangerous weapons in the first place.
Just how exactly will you screen these people? Not every mentally ill person will fail a simple written test. Then what do you do once our government has declared them mentally ill? Will they get the option of a retest? And how will you screen out people who were sane when they bought a gun, but years later they slowly went insane? Then can we do it for drivers licenses too?
Never said it had to be a written test, maybe you have to see a gov. Pscy, for half an hour every year to get your certification. We do it for pilots, and police so why not gun owners and I never said it was the end all fix. Its just one idea that may stop some shootings. It would be worth it to have a few less of what has been an epidemic this last year.
Yeah but we could at least make the commitment of known dangerous mental ill less cumbersome.
Who will be granted the authority to decide who is sane, and who is not? Will this stop an insane person from taking another person's firearm? Will it stop them from obtaining a firearm illegally? Will it prevent all the criminally insane from passing the test in the first place? What about the people who go insane later in life, or those who suddenly snap? Will we retest everyone every few years?
Do you see how yours only keeps guns out of legal law abiding citizens?
From what I've heard, which may or not be accurate based on the validity of news reporting right now, Nancy Lanza knew her son was mentally ill and it was identified by his school. My point is that it never should have gotten to that point. The identification of her son as someone mentally ill and dangerous would have made this whole scenario impossible. As I said before, more of the mass shooting killers were already known dangerous entities before they ever pulled the trigger.
Come off it. Neither you nor anyone else has any clue how such a theoretical system would work.
Quote:
And no, she was not a responsible gun owner but millions are responsible. Why must they all suffer? Why must they all be treated as criminals now? That is your suggestion.
No, that is NOT my suggestion. Gun owners will not "suffer" as a result of this horrific crime. The fact that you even used that word in that context demonstrates how off-kilter your entire frame of reference has become.
Families of those children, and everyone around them, is suffering right now. NOT GUN FREAKS.
Never said it had to be a written test, maybe you have to see a gov. Pscy, for half an hour every year to get your certification. We do it for pilots, and police so why not gun owners and I never said it was the end all fix. Its just one idea that may stop some shootings. It would be worth it to have a few less of what has been an epidemic this last year.
So we treat every citizen as a mental patient, just to weed out the 0.00000001%? Yeah, that seems fair. And we just know crazy people can't get illegal firearms.... cuz they're crazy.
So we treat every citizen as a mental patient, just to weed out the 0.00000001%? Yeah, that seems fair. And we just know crazy people can't get illegal firearms.... cuz they're crazy.
You sure like to create a straw man then tear it down. LOL never said treat every person as a mental patient. Doing a back ground check is not treating every potential gun buyer as a criminal. Never said stolen guns or illegally sold guns can not be bought by mentally ill people. but to not enact regulation because of that is dumb ass crazy.
I don't think gun bans are even in the cards. We have almost as many guns privatly owned as people in the country. So its going to be hard to get them, but we can make regulation so that the loop holes are gone. That people who should not have them have a harder time getting them. How many more shootings will we have if we made it so we can buy them at the McDonalds drive thorugh? So some regulation works. We may need a bit more.
The tax can go towards a massive gun buyback program and to pay for the other things on the list. All guns returned will be recycled and destroyed. The price to be paid for returned guns would be connected to the weapon's firepower (more deadly guns, bigger payout). And yes, these rules would apply to hunting firearms.
Don't like any of this? Find another hobby.
Sorry, won't work. I'll keep my hobby. You find another way to deal with the violence.
How about we shut down Hollywood and Music from glorifying violence. Check out the new Tom Cruise movie.
Come off it. Neither you nor anyone else has any clue how such a theoretical system would work.
It's not a theoretical system, it's one that USED TO HAVE in this country. Crazy people were locked up in facilities and given treatment if they appeared to be of possible harm to themselves or others. It was the Carter administration, I believe, that felt we should street 'em and treat 'em. That hasn't worked out so well though, has it?
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.
And we just know crazy people can't get illegal firearms.... cuz they're crazy.
