Well, I said it. This latest school shooting summed it up for me. The USA has more of these tragic events than any other civil country. How often does this happen in Canada? Something must change. I've traditionally been a 2nd amendment supporter but this shooting has changed my mind. I'd have to admit I'm with Michael Moore on this one. JMHO.
Gun Control does not work - just like taxing people to reduce the deficit
The solution lies in the fact that this person was mentally deranged. If it wasn't a gun, it could've been a kitchen knife, a hunk of 5' metal pipe, even a hatchet or a chain saw...
Every time some bad stuff happens and people clamor for gun control, I have to think: THis is just a knee-jerk reaction to an event that is in the past. Sort of like making people take off their shoes to fly on an aircraft. It's stupid and unreasonable
"Gun Control does not work - just like taxing people to reduce the deficit
The solution lies in the fact that this person was mentally deranged. If it wasn't a gun, it could've been a kitchen knife, a hunk of 5' metal pipe, even a hatchet or a chain saw..."
There definitely seem to be two sides to the gun control issue, but this argument just doesn't work. It should be fairly obvious that there wouldn't have been 28 people die in this incident had the shooter only had the above type of weapons. By this type of logic, the fact that you can't prevent the mentally deranged from trying to blow up a building would mean that you shouldn't worry about making nuclear weapons easy for them to get to.
The young man that inflicted the violence was an ill person. Why do we automatically seek to treat the symptom rather than the problem ? It sounds so much like our western medicine.
In this case, how much easier to change the law to require mentally disturbed people to take medication or remain restricted from the community, rather than attempt to change the constitution ?
You can ban guns, knives, box cutters, swords, sticks or stones... you won't disarm evil.
Any gun control beyond simple licensing would be silly , and if anything, it should be left up to the states given how incompetent and wasteful DC is..
Not nearly enough credit given to the fact that a population that is armed and allowed to use deadly force (if need be) can prevent a lot of murders simply because of the deterrence effect.
in fact, a lot of murders also prevented simply because people WERE able to defend themselves with a firearm . Many tens of thousands /year as I recall.
And it has nothing to do with capacity of magazines , semi automatic or automatic firearms---- using a gun for anything else to commit murder is illegal and subject to criminal prosecution and most people are law abiding so why should we infringe on the rights of the law abiding citizens because of a few people that are either criminal or mentally unfit?
Licensing would prevent most of the mentally unfit from getting access and criminals just don't care about the laws and have a multitude of other ways to commit murder so more strict control and regulation would only hassle duck hunters and those that are law abiding while doing no good at all except cost money.
Had the principal carried a firearm at Sandy Hook, it's likely the death toll would have been a lot less but given that most schools would never allow for that, a principal could never do such a thing without breaking the rules in Connecticut.
Instead, the principal rushed the shooter and paid with her life so I wonder if she had the chance to do it all over again and we could hypothetically ask her a question about school personel having a right to carry a firearm if they chose to, what her thoughts might be?
Keep in mind, the shooter shot himself once he realized that law enforcement was closing in so it stands to reason that he might never have even considered doing this heinous act had he known that just one school official might be armed.
the non-stop MSM coverage of this story is opportunistic and serving Obama's agenda doesn't surprise me one bit.
agree, (mostly) not the guns , but doesn't help to have so many around ..
Do not agree on changing the law on mental illness could leed to MORE strange disappearing acts. I would get taken in in like 10 minutes !
The question is why do SO MANY or MOST of these "ill" males come from the United States , and secondly why do they take it out mostly on kids , ? yuk! M ,,f. ,ers!!
That is somesome evil mierda.
"You can ban guns, knives, box cutters, swords, sticks or stones... you won't disarm evil."
But let's a put sickness analogy to evil. Saying you won't disarm evil seems somewhat analogous to saying that you can't disarm germs by widespread hand washing and covering your mouth when you sneeze or cough. Maybe that's not a perfect analogy, but the point is that while you can't eradicate germs and their influence, there may be certain things that influence how harsh the germs ( or evil) can be. I have no set opinions on how much gun control we need, but I think there are debatable issues here.
We shouldn´t be facilitiating evil. Mental illness exists in all societies. What differetiates ours from the others, in this regard, is the ease with which deadly weopons can be obtained. That is the problem, not the symptom.
Yeah, the frequency of this in the US is way out of line with the rest of the first world countries. Of course, Norway stands as proof of the fact that it can happen even in very gun-controlling countries, so perfection won't be possible. But we've got to dial back from where we are, we've got a system that makes it too easy for crazy people to get ahold of fearsome firepower.
The combination of a powerhouse NRA that allows few limits on guns and a degenerate, moral-free-zone entertainment culture where our movies and video games center on gun violence is just deadly. One or the other might be OK, together they are toxic.
"The combination of a powerhouse NRA that allows few limits on guns and a degenerate, moral-free-zone entertainment culture where our movies and video games center on gun violence is just deadly. One or the other might be OK, together they are toxic."
These are both good points. Way too much violence in entertainment these days. While the average person won't be tipped into violence as a result of this, there's a chance that the marginal cases are being influenced. I've never seen a Quentin Tarantino movie, but when Kill Bill 2 came out, I bought a ticket and wondered into the movie after it had already started. I ended up setting next to a family who had brought preschool age children into that movie. These were kids who were probably 4 or 5 and the first few minutes of that movie were one piece of cartoonish bloody violence after another. I was so disgusted that they were being allowed to watch this, that I got up from my seat and went and talked to the people selling tickets as to whether it was truly allowable to bring kids into a movie like that. The answer was that because it was an R rated movie that the parents were able to do that. Who would bring their kids to a movie called "Kill Bill". After that, I had no wish to watch the rest of the movie and left.
Now, people will say different things to this a) it's the parent's responsibility to know what their kids are watching and we should put the responsibility only there or b) it's silly to think that that stuff has any sort of effect. So, let it all be, they'll say. But nobody really knows how much damage we're doing to, at least, some minds by having such a laissez faire attitude about it all. That movie should have been given a rating that precluded the parents from bringing the kids in. I"m not sure if the connection was ever proven between Columbine and the Matrix, but we have to consider that these things could be having an effect and we need to reel a lot of it in. Unfortunately, a lot of this does have to do with money. Studios and moviemakers are going to try to seek the kinds of ratings that can make their movies the most money.