maidenn.c.indiana
Trooper
You're not dumb. Unfortunately sometimes there is no rational thought for the things people do to other people.
USA Politics
- Thread starter Genghis Khan
- Start date
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
The way US gun control works is dumb.
(At least) unstable people should not be able to get near weapons. If I understood right, this guy had some kind of a personality disorder. And he used the weapons of his mother.
Unfortunately sometimes there is no rational thought in a country using such old traditions. Unless some people are going to wake up someday.
Let me stress that it goes wrong in other countries as well, but in the US nothing ever seems to change in this matter.
(At least) unstable people should not be able to get near weapons. If I understood right, this guy had some kind of a personality disorder. And he used the weapons of his mother.
Unfortunately sometimes there is no rational thought in a country using such old traditions. Unless some people are going to wake up someday.
Let me stress that it goes wrong in other countries as well, but in the US nothing ever seems to change in this matter.
D
Deleted member 7164
Guest
Those 6 year old kids could've been armed and ready for self defence, yet they chose not to exercise their constitutional liberties and rights. I see no issue here.
So, maybe teachers should start to carry? I think that's a good idea.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
I take that as a cynical comment.
But actually you've pointed out how ridiculously important some things in that constitution are to some Americans.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
You are aware that almost at the same time a crazed man in China killed/injured 20 people with a knife... Are we to say Chinese knife control is dumb? For the millionth time, it's not the guns, it's not the knives, it's the people behind them. I can kill you with an Encyclopedia Britannica while you sleep, are we going to ban/control books after that?
If a teacher is going to carry s/he better shoot it once a week and engage in training where they get shot as well. Last thing we need is a history teacher thinking they're John Wayne and doing more harm than good.
The man is reported to have asperger's, a form of autism in which the afflicted has problems processing empathy. Mostly in males, usually very intelligent, makes them socially awkward. It is also reported that he was mad at his mother for her strictness and showing her students (she taught at the school he gunned down) more love and affection than she did towards him. It wasn't "senseless," or "random." He wanted to punish his mother (and he did, he killed her too), and those he perceived she really cared about.
It still pisses me off how a shooting like this shocks people for a couple of reasons. At least in the U.S it seems they happen everyday, it isn't news anymore, but a way of life. Also, why should the world mourn the loss of a few Americans, but not give a shit of other senseless or deliberate violence elsewhere? How much press did the Chinese psycho get? Next to none, compared to this other sick fuck.
It isn't gun, it isn't even mental illness, nor does it have anything to do with the existence or lack thereof of God. It has to do with people, a very small group of people who decide of their own free will to fuck other people up.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Ah come on Onhell, you're underestimating the danger of firearms.
I believe it was a wrong report. His mother did not work at that school.
The attack at Newtown is the second deadliest shooting attack at a US school or university, after the Virginia Tech killings of 2007 (32 people dead and many injured).
Some people are empathic or have a conscience. They don't like to have innocent people dying so easily.
It has to do with people but not only people. Access to weapons plays a part.
OK, take this for whatever you want, but the USA is different than other countries. And, by that, I mean that we have had access to firearms for hundreds of years. You can enforce harsher gun control, but there are so many weapons available today that you'll never get them out of the hands of people that really want them.
That's part A. Part B is that, whatever any one thinks or wants to believe, it's part of the Constitution. I don't really care if anyone thinks it's right or wrong, it has to be dealt with the correct way, and it isn't easy to make a wholesale change like that.
That's part A. Part B is that, whatever any one thinks or wants to believe, it's part of the Constitution. I don't really care if anyone thinks it's right or wrong, it has to be dealt with the correct way, and it isn't easy to make a wholesale change like that.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
And you have the highest crime rate in the world and the most shootings in the world.
It isn't impossible either. Sadly it might take a few more shootings before enough people will realize that.
No, I never said it was impossible. However, it's extremely difficult. And, again, if someone wants a gun, they will find it, law or not.
Personally, I'm not a fan of taking people's rights away.
Personally, I'm not a fan of taking people's rights away.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
That depends on what the law says, and how it is enforced. Other countries with stricter gun laws have proven it can make a difference.
Everyone their own preferences. I'm not a fan of letting people die so easily. It should be kept to a minimum, and if some responsible politicians can stand up against the mighty weapon lobby (the real reason why it's extremely difficult), then they can try and make a difference.
Here is the law:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Here is how to change it:
Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by the States.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Here is how to change it:
Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by the States.
- Three-fourths of the State legislatures must approve of the amendment proposed by Congress, or
- Three-fourths of the states must approve the amendment via ratifying conventions. This method has only been used once, to repeal Prohibition (21st Amendment).
In essence, you'll have to have 3/4 of the states decide that they want to change the constitution. It isn't impossible, but honestly? Good luck.
As to this:
Don't climb on your high horse and assume that I am a fan of letting people die easily. You are not morally standing on a higher ground than I am just because you think that guns should be controlled. I think that if this guy wanted to kill people he'd have found any way to do it. Pipe bomb, dynamite, black market c-4. Hell, if he didn't pick up a 9mm from someplace, he would have found an assault rifle from some back street black market dealer. Guns are every where, they have laws about all sorts of weapons and people still get them illegally. Just because you make it illegal to have hand guns doesn't mean they will go away.
As to this:
Don't climb on your high horse and assume that I am a fan of letting people die easily. You are not morally standing on a higher ground than I am just because you think that guns should be controlled. I think that if this guy wanted to kill people he'd have found any way to do it. Pipe bomb, dynamite, black market c-4. Hell, if he didn't pick up a 9mm from someplace, he would have found an assault rifle from some back street black market dealer. Guns are every where, they have laws about all sorts of weapons and people still get them illegally. Just because you make it illegal to have hand guns doesn't mean they will go away.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
I think that if someone per se does not want to change his (or better: such) rights, that he finds this more important than trying to do as much as possible to prevent such incidents.
You can't have both. You can't try to address this problem if you want to "keep your rights", exactly as they are. Sorry to be blunt, but it is a choice. And I'd make the other choice.
You can't have both. You can't try to address this problem if you want to "keep your rights", exactly as they are. Sorry to be blunt, but it is a choice. And I'd make the other choice.
Then why not hand out every American, sick people included, an assault rifle with enough munition to kill a whole school? According to your reasoning, this does not make a difference, nor does any law.
What I'm trying to point out is if you take away peoples rights to own handguns, you don't actually solve the problem. Let's look at it this way, if one person in that school had a 'concealed carry' permit, what would have happened differently? It's very possible that the shooter would have been stopped before much had been done. I'm also trying to say that he was determined to do something and whether the guns he used were legal or not, it wouldn't have mattered; someone who wants to create chaos will do so. Period. Such as the person with the knife in China.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
I guess it depends on how the law would be changed.
About access to weapons, I guess we agree that we keep disagreeing. ;-)
One more example, in a slightly different light. Circumstances are important. E.g. people try to commit suicide less often in case it's more difficult to do. Making access to railroads more difficult can make a person think "alright, not here, not now". Such measurements can prevent a person from doing a drastic action. After the cancellation of the attempt, a person could get less depressive, by whatever circumstances. Either they won't try it again, either they will, but if the access to the rails is again difficult, the person can cancel the attempt once again. It doesn't have to be so that the person will always try to kill themselves by all means, trying all methods. That's because the thought of suicide can be a sudden one.
Just like the thought of killing other people. If that guy didn't have an assault weapon, I don't think it is absolutely 100% sure that he'd continued to find any other weapon because he could never have erased the impulse. Circumstances can change. One circumstance is access. The smaller the access to weapons, the smaller the chance someone can use them in a wrong way.
First, I'll point out that whether or not it should be, it is a constitutional right.
As to why, maybe it is antiquated, but the reason was the the writers of the constitution wanted the people of the country to have a defense against the government. Remember, it was a rebellion that created the country at that time and they were thinking that if the government ever became oppressive, the people had the right to defend themselves from it.
Now, the statement has been made that defending oneself against the US has become impossible with the invention of fighter planes, missles and nuclear weapons. If the gov't really wanted to kick the 'people's' asses, it could without breaking a sweat.
However, a rather large percentage of the population are avid hunters. They aren't going to be giving up their right to own weapons easily.
As to why, maybe it is antiquated, but the reason was the the writers of the constitution wanted the people of the country to have a defense against the government. Remember, it was a rebellion that created the country at that time and they were thinking that if the government ever became oppressive, the people had the right to defend themselves from it.
Now, the statement has been made that defending oneself against the US has become impossible with the invention of fighter planes, missles and nuclear weapons. If the gov't really wanted to kick the 'people's' asses, it could without breaking a sweat.
However, a rather large percentage of the population are avid hunters. They aren't going to be giving up their right to own weapons easily.