*Membership spots not really limited!
*Membership spots not really limited!
lionel_luthor wrote:I just don't understand why people wouldn't rather figure out and solve the problem, rather than simply disarm it, temporarily, until the problem inevitably finds other ways to re-manifest itself. I, personally, don't get why so many people focus on preventing the "how" instead of fixing the "why" and why there is such polarity on what the problem really is.
There's a social disease in this country.
I don't see the point of the OP though. I assume it's in response to the horrible crime the other week. A few points though. That state has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, and this guy violated at least ten of them in addition to all his other horrid crimes. He stole the guns from his mother, who bought them legally. Which is yet another crime. He also was refused in an attempt to buy his own rifle the same week. So, basically none of the gun laws did a thing to stop this. Why? Because he wasn't interested in following them.
The real issue is the sad state of mental health in this country. Most mental hospitals have closed, so there are few options for treatment for those with mental illnesses. Mostly what we have left are hospitals for the criminally insane, (think Arkham), or those with developmental disabilities who might harm themselves. Anyone else has to have already done the massacre to get into a hospital.
And the mental patients lobby has seen to it that it is almost impossible to commit a patient, no matter what behavior he may be showing. This last is key. Even if this guy showed signs he might become violent, or had been before without actually killing someone, it still would be nearly impossible to commit him. Leaving aside the 72 holds for observation like the 51-50, which themselves are seriously hard to get, and easy for most mental patients to get around---and rarely lead to anything even if the guy is raving while under hold.
The mental health system in the US was decimated in the 70s and 80s due to budget cuts, (metal hospitals were the first on the chopping block), and the patient's lobby, which was responding to abuses in the system before, but overreacted and set the stage for this sort of thing.
Not to say we didn't have mass killings before, we certainly did, (and they also mostly involved nutcases like in the UT at Austin shootings), but they were far less regular. And this in an era when guns were more readily available, and when more types of guns were. And when carrying guns was a normal, accepted thing with fewer legal consequences throughout much of the country.
For those who say that guns make it easier---well, the same week in China, a guy went into a school and stabbed around twenty kids. And the largest mass school killing in US history involved a disgruntled district employee blowing up an elementary school with dynamite. Where there's an evil will, there's a way. Nor is there an practical way to make sure these guys don't get guns. As we see from this crime, someone intent on murder doesn't care about gun laws.
Even if you banned guns in violation of the Second Amendment, that wouldn't do a thing. There are hundreds of millions of guns out there. with more in the pipeline, (after all, weed and cocaine are banned, and still readily available, as was booze during prohibition). And again, those with evil intent aren't concerned about laws.
BTW, I don't get the inclusion of that EAA ad, if the intent of the OP was to comment on the week's hideous crime. I've never seen a modern killing, let alone massacre, done with SAA, (the Peacemaker, or which those revolvers are clones), or a coach-gun like the one on the right, (used by Wells Fargo stagecoach personnel who road "shotgun".
The Bushmaster he used BTW is most likely NOT an "Assault Rifle" as defined by state law. Those were banned in the early 90s there, and the only ones likely available to his mother are those with lower cap mags. Unless she had a pre-ban version, which meant she had to have bought it way back then. If she did have high cap mags, (which are available), she did so illegally.
So, if the public wants to add new gun laws, fine, but be aware that it won't solve the problem, or likely even slow it down.
Jubilee wrote:Gun control issue
The issue of society in general.
I see both as troubling.
I see one as much easily fixable than others.
BubbaKanoosh wrote:How man gun related deaths does America have per year? Compare that to cancer or Drugs overdose, I'm curious to see which us higher.
I argued this when Aurora happened, I'll argue it again. "Easily fixing" the so called "gun problem" isn't going to stop horrible atrocities like this from happening. Someone who wants to kill a lot of people is going to find a way to kill a lot of people with or without guns. On 9/11 people highjacked and flew commercial airliners into sky scrapers. Years ago a guy set of a bomb in a federal building in Oklahoma. Years ago a guy set off a bomb in a school in the worst school massacre in history. I can literally think of dozens of methods that could result in the deaths of a lot of people that don't include guns at all. Who's to say, had this kid in CT not had guns available to him, that he couldn't have just stolen a large motor vehicle like a bus and run down a packed school yard full of little kids during recess? Stealing a motor vehicle isn't exactly the hardest thing to do. Getting rid of guns doesn't solve the problem, it only delays it or derails it temporarily. Psychos will get as creative as they need to with guns unavailable to them.
I suppose that raises the question "but why make it easy for them?" in response. Well, where does it end then? It's escalation. When do we end up with no rights as citizens and no freedom because the problem is constantly "fixed" the wrong way because the real problem is constantly ignored?
Jubilee wrote:Taking away items used only for killing is taking away a level of freedom that no-one really needs. No-ones going to take away cars or knives
lionel_luthor wrote:You, and any one else of that opinion, have a great many people that vehemently disagree as to whether guns are A) only used for killing, and B) not really a freedom people need.
The largest army in the world is not China. It's the legal gun owners of the United States. A vast majority of those people believe that the guns they own are a freedom they need.
I for one, really enjoy target shooting as a hobby (which involves no killing whatsoever) and I enjoy hunting with a shotgun and with a pistol when I can. There are millions just like me.
For argument's sake, say there's a rash of mass murders that starts to take place over the years involving large vehicles (busses, semi trucks, large utility vehicles) on packed city sidewalks like New York city where dozens of people are run down & killed. Yes, it doesn't really ever happen, but it's entirely possible. Would you then think that large vehicles need to be banned or only in the hands of the government because they potentially enable someone to run over & kill too many people too easily?