I'm not talking about potential. I'm talking about locking up or keeping locked up obviously dangerous people. We arrest people numerous times for domestic violence and terroristic threatening with some of them telling others that they are going to kill them and then we either let them right back out or slap them with a totally worthless restraining order. Why don't we listen to them? Recently we have arrested several people, including Dillon Roof's sister, BEFORE they actually did anything. This is what we need to do more of! The Florida shooter was a known menace and yet both the FBI and Florida authorities dropped the ball on him. If I were a parent of one of the Florida victims I wouldn't by crying for gun control, I would be super pissed off that authorities knew this was going to happen, had something to arrest him for, and totally dropped the ball - doing nothing.
when you post silly claims like that it shows you have no real understanding of the issue and your arguments cannot be taken seriously
Yeah, I should have qualified that. An AR is as useless if you don't want to kill innocent people while you're "defending" yourself. I suppose you are denying that high velocity rounds travel through walls very easily? Can you understand my point or not? If not, it's you who shouldn't be taken seriously.
Yeah, I should have qualified that. An AR is as useless if you don't want to kill innocent people while you're "defending" yourself. I suppose you are denying that high velocity rounds travel through walls very easily? Can you understand my point or not? If not, it's you who shouldn't be taken seriously.
a teeny tiny minority belong to the NRA - and even less follow their extremist leaders. So attacking the positions of leadership hardly is attacking everyday Americans.
Arresting people before they actually do anything is contrary to justice. That is tyranny. You're nice and safe...except from the police. Besides, the idea of using the police to cover the failures of our public health policy is classic conservative thinking. There is always a budget for authoritarianism but health is too expensive.
Please, also understand that when people say "gun control", that's as vague as ****. There is a wide spectrum of actions that could be called "gun control" and many of them are rational. So, when you use paranoid generalities to state your case you seem hysterical. Why is it so vital that military style weapons be available to good people? The irony is thick.
Agreed. I know of no attacks on NRA members, especially that much of the membership agrees with gun control positions the NRA opposes. A leadership that opposes even studying gun violence is weird.
I would agree that hate speech is not free speech. However, to the political left, any disagreement with their stated doctrines is labeled as hate speech.
Closing the market place of ideas is no way to have a fruitful discussion.
The Constitution doesn't classify speech, it says "SPEECH" is free, i.e. "ALL" SPEECH.
Not at all. Leadership understands that studying "gun violence".. is pretty much already a biased study.
That sounds like classic American anti-intellectualism. The verdict before the trial, aka dont bother me with facts put together by pointy-headed scholars. Why then don't they commission their own study that might inform the political positions they advocate, and have their analysis compete with the CDC's? I am sure the gun industry which is an arm of the NRA (or vice-versa) would be glad to fund something like this.
why don't you educate me on your credentials in this area, Me, I was the firearms training officer for my DOJ component, have had hundreds of hours as both a student and instructor at various well known training facilities and earned "Distinguished Expert" with six different handguns on the US Marshals Service Qualification course. High velocity 5.56 or .223 rounds that are picked for home defense often blow apart when hitting sheetrock or brick or studs while some handgun ammo-such as 45 FMJ has a greater chance of exiting a dwelling and harming innocents. The versatility of an AR 15 or similar carbine (I prefer the SIG MCX myself or the Bulgarian Arsenal in 556 NATO) is unmatched in home defense scenarios due to accuracy, capacity, low recoil and range.
You don't lock them up for doing nothing. That's the point. You lock them up because they are obviously dangerous people and they are obviously dangerous people because they HAVE done something already that they could be locked up for. There have been several cases recently where someone was locked up BEFORE shooting up a school, because they had done enough to be locked up. Same with the Florida shooter. He HAD done things he could have been locked up for but both the FBI and Florida authorities failed to lock up a person that should have been locked up. Hell, they just arrested Dylan Roof's sister for bringing a knife to school and making threatening posts on Instagram and that's just one of several where we finally got smart. We will never stop killings and mass killings if we let people run around loose that have already done things they could have been locked up for and we fail to lock them up or keep them locked up.
Anyone can make anything come out exactly how they want it to come out.
We can't stop murders but we can make the tools of MASS murder more difficult to obtain. Some times, limiting access to crazy people means not allowing their sane parents to buy them. Certainly you realize that every potential killer has not already done something to arrouse suspicion. Some aren't identified until they do something horrible. So, I agree that those who are obviously dangerous must be stopped. However, I'd rather not have the cost of gun freedom for a few be a lack of every other freedom for the rest of us. There are rational limits for citizens AND law enforcement.
We can stop the murders if we lock up obviously dangerous people or keep them locked up. If you take people's guns away and let the dangerous people run around free they just use a different method for murdering, such as with bombs.
No, there is no "firearm problem". Gun ownership is actually at its lowest in 40 years. The problem we have is a more complex one. We've always had lots of guns in this country and, in the past, many, many fewer gun laws. Yet, random mass shootings are a fairly recent phenomenon. Our problem is that we no longer confine the mentally ill out of some misbegotten idea that they have a right to roam free even if they are a threat to others and even sometimes express those threats, as Nickolas Cruz did. We've also seen traditional families disintegrate so we have directionless young males with no masculine role models. This leads to alienation, hopelessness, despair and anger, not for all but for far too many. We've also become a society of instant gratification and if people see others getting what they do not have, they feel entitled to exact punishment on them for their own failures. We've also become self absorbed prisoners of our electronic culture, be it the internet, video games, movies, etc. and that also leads to a separation from reality.
All these things play a far larger role than guns. Guns are but the instrument used to carry out an act which is spawned by these other factors. Unless and until we realize this, we will not begin to solve the problem of either rampant inner city gun crime or random mass shootings.
Firstly. Low firearm ownership does not imply a lower crime rate with firearms. The firearm homicide rate has increased from 28,874 in 1999 to 36,252 in 2015. How you can claim there is no problem, is quite misleading and negligent. Its like stating car ownership is at its lowest in 40 years, it doesn't imply less accidents on the road.
Secondly. The inadequacy of the gun legislation in the US is reflective of the ongoing and prior gun deaths and injuries, when a country is having over 36,000 gun deaths and 80,000 gun injuries there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.
To your third point. I am unsure as to what you class as recent but a general consensus by academics and the like put forth recent as the past 5 years and no greater. The first random "mass shooting" identified was in 1949, now that is not recent and there then was a number leading up to the late 80's. It is simply beside the fact if they are recent or not it does not take away from the fact people are being deliberately and maliciously murdered, with nothing being done about it specifically.
Fourthly. A mentally ill person does not need to be confined, rather they need to be treated. It is not the 1800's where we are locking individuals individuals up in mental asylums and alienating them from the normality of daily life. In some case if insanity is reached or the like, options such as locking up need to be identified. The questions around Nicholas Cruz and what could have been done are assumptions. The assumption I pose is this, what is the easiest and what is of the most risk....his mental health, lack of education or firearm. Once again up for negation, but the firearm I believe is that. The United States has put enough money into mental health to clearly see money (1 billion in the past 9 years), programs and ongoing research is not going to stop these individuals from committing these murders.
No doubt mental health, FBI, lack of education and what I perceive the biggest contributing factor the firearms are all contributing factors.
To your other points. I agree, we are a society that requires instant gratification, primarily driven by technology. No doubt.
Good reason for the NRA to do their study. In the 1960s-70s, Nixon commissioned studies of this and that, and ignored many of the various commissions' conclusions and recommendations. But as we now completely abandon the scientific method, whom/what should we believe? Entrails? Tea leaves?
Have you accepted that cars contribute to smog, that smoking causes cancer, etc?
Well, I'm not arguing that dangerous people should be allowed to "run free" and I'm not proposing that ALL of "people's guns" be taken away. So, I don't know how to respond to your imagined situation. Obviously, the criminally insane as well as tools that have no rational purpose to promote human safety should both be taken off the street.
Firstly. Low firearm ownership does not imply a lower crime rate with firearms. The firearm homicide rate has increased from 28,874 in 1999 to 36,252 in 2015. How you can claim there is no problem, is quite misleading and negligent. Its like stating car ownership is at its lowest in 40 years, it doesn't imply less accidents on the road.
Secondly. The inadequacy of the gun legislation in the US is reflective of the ongoing and prior gun deaths and injuries, when a country is having over 36,000 gun deaths and 80,000 gun injuries there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.
To your third point. I am unsure as to what you class as recent but a general consensus by academics and the like put forth recent as the past 5 years and no greater. The first random "mass shooting" identified was in 1949, now that is not recent and there then was a number leading up to the late 80's. It is simply beside the fact if they are recent or not it does not take away from the fact people are being deliberately and maliciously murdered, with nothing being done about it specifically.
Fourthly. A mentally ill person does not need to be confined, rather they need to be treated. It is not the 1800's where we are locking individuals individuals up in mental asylums and alienating them from the normality of daily life. In some case if insanity is reached or the like, options such as locking up need to be identified. The questions around Nicholas Cruz and what could have been done are assumptions. The assumption I pose is this, what is the easiest and what is of the most risk....his mental health, lack of education or firearm. Once again up for negation, but the firearm I believe is that. The United States has put enough money into mental health to clearly see money (1 billion in the past 9 years), programs and ongoing research is not going to stop these individuals from committing these murders.
No doubt mental health, FBI, lack of education and what I perceive the biggest contributing factor the firearms are all contributing factors.
To your other points. I agree, we are a society that requires instant gratification, primarily driven by technology. No doubt.
The Constitution doesn't classify speech, it says "SPEECH" is free, i.e. "ALL" SPEECH.
It has already been pointed out to you how the use of "gun violence" is an invalid statistic and leads to an erroneous conclusion regarding firearms.
Yet you continue to persist in its use.
If low gun ownership does not correlate to low gun crime, then the calls to further limit the ability of law abiding people without mental health issues to buy guns, makes no sense. We have laws in place to stop many, but not all, mass shootings but they are unevenly and indiscriminately applied. We need a better background check system and we need harsh penalties for those knowingly selling guns to either criminals or those with mental health issues.
As for the mentally ill, they've been done a grave injustice ever since the mental health and pharmaceutical industries, starting in the 70's, decided that institutionalization should be replaced with out patient medication. That's why we have an epidemic of mentally ill people who are homeless and living on the streets. They are unable to care for themselves and become a blight on many of our cities yet people claim that this is somehow their right, as if they have any other choice under the circumstances. It is both wrong headed and callous and makes it extremely difficult to identify those with a penchant for random violence.
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?