Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And this isn’t even an either/or situation. Do both things.What is easier and less expensive - to control access to guns or to tackle the complex psychological issues that cause people to kill.
The answer is, I suggest, rather obvious.
The answer is blatantly obvious, do neither. The calls to address mental illness are just hot air.What is easier and less expensive - to control access to guns or to tackle the complex psychological issues that cause people to kill.
The answer is, I suggest, rather obvious.
That is the present situation - doing nothing, while the body count keeps on rising.The answer is blatantly obvious, do neither. The calls to address mental illness are just hot air.
Something to think about...That is the present situation - doing nothing, while the body count keeps on rising.
Your Constitution provides the answer. The Second Amendment allows for citizens to bear arms in a well regulated militia. If you want to have a gun, join one, otherwise you are liable to the force of the law.
There you are. Sorted by a Limey!
There is more to it than ease and expense. You are also violating the rights of millions of innocent people in the process.What is easier and less expensive - to control access to guns or to tackle the complex psychological issues that cause people to kill.
The answer is, I suggest, rather obvious.
Well. I agree about the need to deal with mental illness, of course. Many mass shooting incidents can be linked to untreated or undiagnosed mental illness. A good health service would go a long way in ameliorating the problem.One does not need a gun to do a mass murder.
Mass Murder without Guns
The fianl graph tells the truth better than I. If we get distracted by the mode, we miss the cause. You can continue to blame the inanimate object if you choose, but you will not solve the real problem.
"In the U.S., the core problem underlying most mass murders is people with severe mental illness, who in 1960 would have hospitalized before chalk marks had to be drawn around bodies. If we solve the mental illness issue, the guns do not matter. And focusing on the guns directs the severely mentally ill to other weapons."
As I suspected, the article never makes the case that people always, or even usually, substitute another means to kill if they are denied a gun. All the article proves is that people sometimes do kill with something other than a gun.One does not need a gun to do a mass murder.
Mass Murder without Guns
You cannot possibly not know that this is a bad argument. First, it is beyond obvious that if you give an effective weapon, even though that weapon is inanimate, to a person with murderous intent, you have made things worse. It is time to get real - you have to know that the "it's animate" argument is fatally flawed.You can continue to blame the inanimate object if you choose, but you will not solve the real problem.
I think it is worth pointing out that although the assertion is only too obvious the National Review article seems to struggle to make its case. It takes us all round the world through many decades in order to find a mere handful of examples. In my view it is written with the intention of bolstering the cause of gun ownership, not an unbiased examination of the issue. It lumps together a wide range of events like the sarin killings of Japan, Islamist terrorist attacks and IRA bombings.One does not need a gun to do a mass murder.
But you make our point! It is not guns; it is Americans. Other countries have millions of guns also. What about the general absence of mass shootings by their guns? What is going on with Americans that they want to do mass harm to people? What has changed in the last 4 or 5 decades?I think it is worth pointing out that although the assertion is only too obvious the National Review article seems to struggle to make its case. It takes us all round the world through many decades in order to find a mere handful of examples. In my view it is written with the intention of bolstering the cause of gun ownership, not an unbiased examination of the issue. It lumps together a wide range of events like the sarin killings of Japan, Islamist terrorist attacks and IRA bombings.
The American problem is unique, as is the massive degree of gun ownership. Perhaps Americans should examine themselves, rather than seek false comparisons abroad.
Other countries have millions of guns??!!!But you make our point! It is not guns; it is Americans. Other countries have millions of guns also. What about the general absence of mass shootings by their guns? What is going on with Americans that they want to do mass harm to people? What has changed in the last 4 or 5 decades?
It is Americans with guns. I agree that America has a unique problem to address - actually two. The killings and the over-abundance of firearms are connected. Both aspects need to be addressed.But you make our point! It is not guns; it is Americans. Other countries have millions of guns also. What about the general absence of mass shootings by their guns? What is going on with Americans that they want to do mass harm to people? What has changed in the last 4 or 5 decades?
It was well earned too.We're #1!
Which is better: to donate to a wealthy and well funded rifle organization that defends your 2nd Amendment right, or to donate to a poor and underfunded organization that will take on the super wealthy organization who want to abolish the 2nd Amendment?It was well earned too.
Lots of effort from grass roots communities building a strong gun identity/culture, to a wealthy and well funded rifle association, to strong lobbying, donating millions to presidential campaigns, to a highly politicized and ingrained identity for true conservatives, to a distrust and paranoia about rogue governments, to memes about good guys with guns and guns don't kill people, to they would have died anyway, to deflections about video games or mental health.
It appears that you blame atheism for mass shootings and for a general decline in morality. I think there are two massive assumptions right there. It would be very difficult (I think impossible) to show a decline in morality either in America or anywhere else in the world. It is a claim regularly made by every generation for the one that comes after.America has lost a great deal of morality since atheism has risen.
More properly 'You have had no mass shootings so far.' That is as you suggested, just luck. I think it is another (demonstrably wrong) assumption that mass shootings occur only in place where people do not carry guns everywhere.We have no mass shootings around here. Is it just luck? Maybe we just haven't had one yet? Who knows. Maybe the thought of going into a gun carrying zone just doesn't have the appeal for the mass shooter type that soft targets in gun free zones do.
True but irrelevant. Mass shootings are typically carried out by people who have no criminal record and are not known to the police. They commit their crime (It is only ever one criminal event) with weapons they have obtained specifically for the purpose, either by having easy access at home or through the lax application of the gun laws that have somehow got past the obstructions put up by the NRA.Last but not least. Criminals will always get guns
No, not most of us. Another whopping great assumption!Most of us see the government as completely corrupt and without a moral conscience.
The fact there are two big oceans and neighboring countries we have good relations with has more to do with that.Who wants to invade a country where there is a gun behind every blade of grass?
Read the whole 2nd Amendment. I think there is a good reason for regulation, but good regulation. More education for gun ownership, spelling out the responsibilities and safety measures need to be. And then having gun owner be held responsible for their weapons, charged for any accidental discharges in a crowded area, and reporting when they are stolen.I believe that "Shall not be infringed" means exactly that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?