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.
O.K. nothing wrong with wanting to clarify things.
Or explosives? You will have to note why you picked auto weapons though as outside of the military I'm not sure when the last person was killed with an automatic weapon.
My argument is people who are intent to kill will kill. That we should address the reasons people decide to kill. Your argument is one where you believe we can lessen the number of people who are killed once people decide to kill.
Mental illness is generally a progressive problem. If you can address it early in it's development you can in many cases slow down or stop it's progression. There is nothing to suggest that restrictions on one form of killing will stop people from killing. Other forms are just as deadly.
I don't want to trade guns for explosives. I want to address the issue before it ever gets that far. Do you have an issue with that?
Mental illness in this country has been a major issue since the 80s. Nobody seems to have the solution or will to tackle it as a major issue. We have immigration issues, infrastructure issues, entitlements issues, etc. I have always hoped it would be addressed and it never is. Because of our instant gratification country, if it is not something they can see, feel or spend immediately--they don't care about it. Spending money on mental health, like education, is an investment. The results won't be felt for a few years. And our current admin is not interested.
Do you really believe they will do anything to even put a dent in mental health? I don't. Our government does not want to spend money on it. They don't even want to have health insurance. I have no hope at all that the GOP or Trump will do anything but try to cut funds for it.
Therefore, I believe we should go for the next best result--fewer deaths. This can be accomplished, and has in other countries, by banning assault rifles, the USA mass killer's weapon of choice.
Common sense. He used the bump-stocks to make his semis as auto as possible.
Quote:
He also had a pilot's license and owned an airplane that he could have loaded up with fuel and crashed it into the densely packed crowd which was assembled there. Which more than likely would have had an even higher death toll. Why didn't he do that?
Because he was not in a suicide mission, and because a firearm was his choice of tool.
Mental illness in this country has been a major issue since the 80s. Nobody seems to have the solution or will to tackle it as a major issue. We have immigration issues, infrastructure issues, entitlements issues, etc. I have always hoped it would be addressed and it never is. Because of our instant gratification country, if it is not something they can see, feel or spend immediately--they don't care about it. Spending money on mental health, like education, is an investment. The results won't be felt for a few years. And our current admin is not interested.
I'm not going to disagree there.
Quote:
Do you really believe they will do anything to even put a dent in mental health? I don't. Our government does not want to spend money on it. They don't even want to have health insurance. I have no hope at all that the GOP or Trump will do anything but try to cut funds for it.
Therefore, I believe we should go for the next best result--fewer deaths. This can be accomplished, and has in other countries, by banning assault rifles, the USA mass killer's weapon of choice.
It's not going to happen either. There are tens of thousands of them here and they are not going anywhere. Yes, they are the "cool" choice but nobody is going to say "This or that is not easy to get so I'm just going to watch television".
Well, as you seem to be a 100% liberal/leftist, and may not understand or comprehend, but if you'd like to have a discussion about "whatever" you should not insult those that you'd like to have a conversation with.
It's hard for me to believe this has to be explained to those on the liberal/left, but it explains a lot.
Yes I agree but, with all due respect, coming from a poster who insults, disparages and calls liberal names quite often during 'conversations', it seems rather odd advice.
But the killings will be more frequent and the body count will be much higher in a nation that proliferates and glorifies guns - especially high-capacity assault rifles - like candy.
I am so sick of conservatives using the false argument that just because we can't prevent EVERY killing we should do NOTHING while the absurdly high rate of carnage continues unabated.
Your defense of the status quo means you are part of the problem and partly responsible.
How can you convince someone to make a commitment to upholding the non-aggression principle?
I've been blathering about it for years on here to no avail.
In fact, when will you embrace it?
Glass houses and all...
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.
