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.
So what, the whole point of this thread is to bash the kid's father?
You can blame the combination of mental illness and easily available guns, and you can simultaneously wish that the mental health system was better and that guns were more difficult to get.
They are BOTH problems in the same way that having cancer AND having leprosy are both problems.
Millions of people own guns that have never and will never harm anyone. The same can't be said for mental illness, cancer or leprosy.
I was asking a question to learn, not to score some liberal political snark points. No need to be an ahole about it.
If you had paid attention, you would have learned all about it. It was all over the news. It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative snark. It's a fact.
If the NRA lobbies against any gun control laws, laws which could have potentially prevented Mr Rodger from purchasing weapons, then it's not irrational to disagree with the NRA's position on these laws.
Laws prevented Adam Lanza from purchasing weapons. Is it your position that those that were killed by stabbing and ran over by a car aren't important? That as long as guns are banned all is well because then the mentally I'll will simply behave because you feel better about yourself?
The question why do you even go on with this BS when I showed you that guns don't prevent rape as exemplified by Alaska's super high rape rate...
Nobody is going to allow weapons in airports, federal buildings, post offices or schools simply because it's too dangerous.
One thing that is consistent in the numerous 2nd amendment vs gun control debates I have engaged in or lurked in is the pro gun control people always deflect, dance around answering straight questions when confronted, and instead of offering intellectual responses offer emotionalism and name calling. In a latest thread in the current events section one pro gun control person just claimed pro gun people as " those sexually attracted to guns" which is in step with the insults of " making up for their manhood" or "making up for their penis size" and such.
Answer a simple question without deflecting the answer, what is more important?, to ban guns so some bad people won't get them while the rest who are good will be sacrificed by not being allowed to protect themselves?
or
Except that dangers that some will misuse their freedoms, and uphold for the rest who are responsible to keep their freedom?
Because even if Alaska has statics of more rape and also gun ownership, it is the one woman who had a gun on her at the time who did stop her attacker that matters, as a individual that is what the bill of rights is about. If she was your loved one all you would think is glad she had it despite the fact that other women might not have been carrying or where caught off guard.
That's real nice and all, but you didn't answer the question...
If as you said he should have been arrested for attempting to push someone off a balcony, what part did the NRA play in preventing him getting arrested?
Without an arrest there can be no charge, without a charge, then there can be no trial, and without a trial or hearing there can be no restriction on firearm ownership.
Seems to me the fault doesn't lie with the NRA, but with the police.
Unless you're proposing we eliminate the 5th Amendment due process clause, is that what you're proposing?
Well you didn't answer the question either, where is the NRA on gun safety issues other than lining the pockets of politicians with more funding to make sure there are lax gun regulations and even minimal legislation doesn't see the light of day.
I don't feel the NRA is directly at fault in this particular case but they are most certainly complicit, rather naïve point of view to indicate they have no hand in these issues.
BTW people just to remind once again , this happened in California which has the strictest gun control in the nation, has a tactical police force that confiscates people's guns ( and relatives guns ) without a warrant if they are in a mental database, rates a A grade state from the gun control lobby, and the NRA grades California a F in gun freedom. Police interviewed the murderer and let him go,even after family warned the police. The murderer bought the guns legally under all California law, he didn't go out of state to a gun friendly state to buy them under the table.
Yet its still the NRA's fault?
Almost every news article keeps titling this a shooting spree in their headline, and only mentions a knife in the words in between. Why? Because it suits a agenda against guns, and the fact of the knife and auto used as a weapon doesn't.
I'm only going to post this one last time but the NRA did want an active registry of mentally ill patients. I'm not sure why you're deflecting from this.
The side effect of building a federal "loney toons" list will be the effective rolling back of mental health care by 80 years. No one is going to seek treatment out of fear of going on the goverment's list. They will get sicker and sicker and some small portion will get an illegal gun or use a bomb or other weapon and then dumb people will scratch their heads and wonder why we have a mental health crisis.
Well you didn't answer the question either, where is the NRA on gun safety issues other than lining the pockets of politicians with more funding to make sure there are lax gun regulations and even minimal legislation doesn't see the light of day.
I don't feel the NRA is directly at fault in this particular case but they are most certainly complicit, rather naïve point of view to indicate they have no hand in these issues.
Of course it isn't the fault of the NRA that they do not take up your cause to strip people of their constitutional rights.
It would be as foolish as me wondering why the ACLU isn't arguing to strip the mentally ill of their constitutional rights.
The side effect of building a federal "loney toons" list will be the effective rolling back of mental health care by 80 years. No one is going to seek treatment out of fear of going on the goverment's list. They will get sicker and sicker and some small portion will get an illegal gun or use a bomb or other weapon and then dumb people will scratch their heads and wonder why we have a mental health crisis.
Absolutes never make good arguments. I'm not sure anyone is arguing that simply because they seek some sort of counseling that their rights should be stripped from them.
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.
