No, stronger gun laws will not prevent these killings but armed guards would at least have a chance of reducing the body count. How stupid is it for a military facility not to have any available people with a loaded gun? Purely stupid! I believe it is mental illness. We need more hospitals. I remember when they were closed and the patients turned out into the streets. The cities put them in hotel rooms in our town. Now, our beatiful old hotel is shuttered and out of business. There are people who simply can't exist in society and we have to have hospitals for them.
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
I keep a couple loaded at all times. It's funny, never once has one gone outside and hassled anyone, let alone cut loose on them. I guess I have a couple of the 'not dangerous' ones.
2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Hardly any guns in the UK and they have a violent crime rate more than 4 times that of the United States. It's not about whether or not you should face such a situation and not have to be worried about the attacker having a gun, it's about you being able to fend off said attacker with your own gun and preserve your natural right of self defense.
3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
What does that have to do with fact that all these mass murders have been committed by people on or withdrawing from these drugs?
1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Questioner...certainly a huge start. But, what about all the others. What about the majority playing violent video games.
1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
In this case, maybe better (different) government contractors doing better checks on military personnel would help--company that did the background here was the same one that did Snowden's.
They suffer from mental illness, hence the drugs, doesn't mean the drugs caused their violent behavior. If these drugs are so dangerous and cause violent behavior you would think that as their usage increases so would violent crime rates.
0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
NotSocialist, SSRI usage in this country has increased over the past decade while the violent crime rate has gone down over the same period.
"If someone poses a threat to society with a gun, then they pose a threat to society without a gun." True, but I would rather face a threat without a weapon then one with.
4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Maybe the best way, Grant. The federal government is only in existance to protect us...so it makes sense.
How about allowing the states to create their own gun laws like the 10th amendment says they can? If they don't infringe upon the 2nd amendment then they're fine. If you want to live under a certain set of rules, move to the state that is set up the way you want. That's what federalism is all about.
In Florida, if you commit a crime with a gun...locked up for 25 years with no parole. Would that work? How about making every crime with any weapon subject to 25 years in a federal prison with no parole?
3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Yes, Grant, but it seems killing goes up with stronger gun laws. And, nobody dares to tackle the mental illness. So, is the answer to go to a police state? Vigilanties? Anyone caught doing a crime with a gun sent to Gitmo? Maybe a new deal with Putin to send them to Siberia?
All jokes aside...what do we do?
1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
I don't support this president and I can't support the me party.
good point grant
If someone poses a threat to society with a gun, then they pose a threat to society without a gun.
I personally stand firm on every Constitutional right and will always do so, but we must finds ways to cut down on the killings. And, if we just keep getting angry with each other, it won't happen.
I don't understand why Bob, who was in the service when our Presidents couldn't find a way out of the quagmire called Vietnam, could back another even weaker President...but it's his right to do so. And, if you just stop being so absolute...maybe he has some points to ponder...
Ok, I'm a hunter and I would love to target shoot but do I need a bazooka to keep my rights? And since we cannot trust the government anymore, how can we find a way to find the bad guy's guns and keep our freedoms?
"Great! They keep people like you from infringing on my Constitutional rights."
No people like me that stood up and protected your constitutional rights.
The nra only puts money into the pocket of*****like your friend wayne.
"So how is the NRA working out for us? "
Great! They keep people like you from infringing on my Constitutional rights.
We're going to need a lot more than a change to the Constitution to stop gun violence in this country. The guns are already here. They have been for a long time. Over 100 million of them, or about one gun for every three citizens. This is a fact. Not only do you need a legal process that outlaws their ownership, but (here's the tricky part) you will also need a process that removes them from circulation. Any ideas?
Wow Grant you the man!
So much for the debate.
Countries with no guns have fewer gun deaths?! NO WAY! Brilliant research, you should probably get a Nobel prize for that. I wonder how many tribal Africans die in car accidents every year?
Many counties have far fewer gun deaths than the US, many countries also have a much higher rate of violent crime. No other country has the 2nd amendment either. You know, that inconvenient little CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT that gets in the way of anyone's anti gun stance. The conversation should end right there, if you want to eliminate guns then get an amendment passed. Instead the conversation goes something like, "I'm taking full advantage of my 1st amendment right, which you can't strip from me or deny me, to tell you that you should be stripped of your 2nd amendment right, despite all of the facts that destroy my argument."
Are these drugs taken in other countries? So it's the drugs.
Here's a few hundred examples of these drugs linked to violence:
161 North Lincoln , Salem, OH 44460 |