 |
Wondergirl did you read the article I linked? It brought me to tears again. I too sometimes blame the parents but to be honest we don't know what they did or did not do. It is another mom saying what she has been doing and trying. She needs help from her village to raise her son. She is saying her son could be Adam.
Yes, I read that article. And there IS help out there for that mother and others. As a counselor, mother, and former schoolteacher, I know there is no real reason not to seek help and be able to get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mogrann
That takes us to the musical question, why doesn't a parent reach out for help?
There is a huge difference Tomder. In Connecticut the insane individual had a gun and killed 26 people. In China the insane individual had a knife and injured 22 people. See the difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I have already stated that I'm not against people owing guns. I'm against people having weapons that can hold a clip with 100 or more bullets. It's not necessary.
To answer J's post. I do know that it's the individual, and not the guns, that's responsible for this. But, had the individual not had access to the caliber of weapons he had access to, the death toll would have been far less. Yes, people still would have died, but most likely not 26 people. The death toll would have been far less, IMO.
I'm simply proposing that regular people that only have weapons to protect their homes and families, not have access to weapons that should only be necessary in battle.
Alty, the average person cannot have a magazine that holds 100 or more rounds. Those are reserved for military an police. That is where you are mistaken.
The 2nd amendment is not just about personal protection and hunting rights .
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Thomas Jefferson)
Let's just imagine there's government tyranny (hmmm, whose definition?) People don't even know their neighbors any longer. How on earth would any kind of a useful militia be formed?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Maybe part of the solution is to look to the past what worked before to have a sense of community? Yes bad things happened then but we have thrown out the bad and the good from the past.
1. Discipline notice I did not say abuse. Teaching right from wrong. Consequences.. Every child is different what works for one may not work for another.
2. Knowing your neighbors. Becoming friendly. Helping out when they need help. Being there when they need emotional support. Becoming like it is here. We all care about each other, we don't always agree (look at this thread) but we don't suddenly hate each other or stop talking.
3. Respect others beliefs or non beliefs. Respect others traditions and holidays. You don't have to agree with them but you can respect their right to believe it without belittling or trying to change them.
These are all things we don't need laws to start doing. We don't need to wait on others to start doing these either. I plan on making lots of changes in my life and if I am the only one that is okay. I will live my life knowing I tried. I am sure there are many more please share if you have any I will love to hear them.
Funny I was looking for someone to tell me what to do and as I shut up and listened to you guys and my inner voice I came up with this.
Back in 1776 they said ,'how can a rag-tag group of farmers defeat the most powerful army on the planet' ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Now we're a rag-tag country of 314,952,339 and counting -- every religion, culture, language, political belief from A to Z. Build me a militia.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello WG:
It doesn't take a militia. A few rag tag fellows whooped on us pretty badly with just IED's. A few Jews in the ghetto gave a well armed German army fits. If every American who HAD a sidearm resisted, nobody could prevail over us - not even our own government.Quote:
Build me a militia.
Excon
Dear excon:
I'll be waiting and watching. Oh, and what will bring us with sidearms to that point?
Fondly,
WG
Time to get real Tom and stop living in the past, how many times have I told you that. That was then, this is now. Trying that sort of thing today will definitely get you killedQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
There is apparently a petition on the White House web site, I couldn't copy the link from my source it led to a news wire.
The 2nd amendment is very definitely about national emergencies, but remember in those days guns only had one shot and you couldn't fire more than two or three times a minute so you needed cannon fodder in the terms of lots of people firing together. If there is a crisis to which a militia could respond what sort of body count do you expect. Today's weapons and tactics are not appropriate to a militia of the type envisaged by the writers of the constitution
Just remember what happened to your most powerful army on the planet in Vietnam and they weren't defeated by a militia
The one about mental illness as the real thing that needs to be addressed?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...paign=shorturl
Yes there is more than one issue here, but gun ownership and access needs to be must more stringent, perhsps what you need is training and education about weapons in high school, it might take some of the glamour out of gun ownership and pick up people with wrong attitudesQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Clete ;like Ex said...
Back in 1776 the people had basically the same weaponry as the government . Now with all the sophistication of weapons ,the strongest army gets defeated by strategically planted IED and men on horseback .The Syrian Army presumably is better armed than the so called Free Syrian Army.. Who's winning there ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by odinn7
I made the mistake of posting that in response to the gun show/private sale thing without being detailed enough about it I suppose. Here, in PA, you need the check for anything other than BP as well if you are buying from a dealer. In a private sale, there is a required background check on handguns but not on rifles. That is what I was referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by J_9
So you advocate insurrection to solve politicaL problems, Syria is a good example of why military weapons shouldn't be allowed in the general population, indiscriminate killing, religious warfare, revenge taking and what, 2 years of hell. You are going to get kicked out of Afghanistan for the same reasonsQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom this shooter fired"" hundeds" of rounds from what they have now found to be three semi automatic weapons. There can be no reason why one person is permitted to own so many of those weapons. This person made a military style assault on the school, a one man militia, How ridiculous is that, that he should be able to do that.
The M.E. reported that only the Bushmaster was used to kill, and he used one of the hand guns on himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Here it's a lot tougher. Just to own or buy a gun (not fire it) you need to fill out forms that would make applying for citizenship look like a kindergarten math quiz. It's intense.Quote:
Originally Posted by odinn7
The guns we have, we didn't buy. They all belonged to my father and Rod's. When they bought them the laws were less strict. Now, in order to keep weapons we don't even use (Rod has used them for target practice around 3 times in 11 years) Rod has to go through not only registration, a criminal and mental background check, a class, but more.
It took 6 months just to get a license to keep the weapons we already had before this law was passed. Weapons we didn't even buy. Weapons that to us, are sentimental. That license is just to own these weapons, not to buy new ones, or to fire the ones we own.
The fact that Rod has a license, but is married to a person that doesn't, also cause major issues.
Our weapons are required to be locked in a gun case at all times. The bullets must be locked in a separate case.
It's very involved, much more than I can even attempt to express in writing.
In other words. If Rod were to go postal, decide to go on a killing spree, had a mental break, he'd have to find the key to the gun case, the key to the bullet case, load the weapon (the one that holds the most bullets holds only 5) before he could carry out his plan.
I love my husband, but thankfully that's too much work for him, even if he were to go insane. :)
Who checks that you have complied with the law?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alty
Random checks. Trust me, we get checked often, because Rod is registered to own and fire the guns we have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
It's never an expected visit. One time we had two visits in a week.
Who checks?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alty
Rcmp.Quote:
Originally Posted by wondergirl
Edit: I posted that in capitals, as it should be, but it posted in lower caps. :(
Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
population --
Canada = 35,007,972 or so
USA = 314,953,240 or so
And many guns in this country are not registered.
And the stats Exy posted, for the number of deaths by handguns, well, the US beats all others (combined) by a whopping 10,000 plus per year. The second highest was 58, I believe. The US, over 10,000, closer to 11,000.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
And your conclusion is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alty
It's a no brainer, this list demonstates that the US is among underdeveloped countries where gun related deaths are concerned
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate
Figure it out yourself WG. It's not brain surgery. Stop asking questions instead of giving answers. That's all you ever seem to do. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
There is no way the police can do unscheduled checks (physically, legally, morally), plus too many guns are owned illegally. We have a huge problem in this country and any suggestion we do it the way Canada does just won't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alty
No one suggested that you do it the way Canada does it, but really, the numbers speak for themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Last year handguns killed;
48 people in Japan
8 in Great Britain
34 in Switzerland
52 in Canada
58 in Israel
21 in Sweden
42 in West Germany
10,728 in the US.
Whatever the US is doing, it's obviously not working. If mental illness were really the cause, well, either the US has a lot of nut cases, or that's not the issue.
Like I said before, it's really a no brainer.
I don't understand "no brainer." I agree with you there is an incredibly huge and complex problem. The solution, if there is one, is yet to be thought of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alty
Actually, I think the solution has been thought of. Sadly, the majority of Americans are against that solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Edit: As for the "no brainer" part. It means, it doesn't take a brain to figure it out. Look at the stats. All the countries listed have strict gun laws, all but the US. All have under 60 deaths a year due to handguns. The US has almost 11,000. Those numbers really do speak for themselves. The answer is staring everyone in the face. Until there are stricter gun laws, the death toll will continue to accumulate in the US. All countries have people with mental issues. All countries have people.
The old quote "Guns don't kill people. People kill people", is bull.
It should be "Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people".
I personally think the real problem lies in how we parent our children. Most of the gangs in Chicago are made up of sons (and maybe some daughters) of single mothers, girls who got pregnant at 14, 15 -- plus Hollywood, TV, and women's magazines don't help. I like three sitcoms that used to be quite funny. Last season and this season they have degenerated into humor on a very low level, mostly about the human body and sex. And these are in prime time when children are watching. Why did they change? And why do parents allow their children to watch the movies and TV shows they do? We have lost our way as parents in teaching self respect and respect for others.
It is apparent that the mother was a survivalist nut and with a son with asperger's/autism the combination has proved lethal. It is very hard for a system of licensing to exclude such combinations. It is far better that the weapons are what is restricted
I can tell there is a solution it is very costly, try the Australian solution an amnesty and buy back where every surrendered weapon is valued and paid for and destroyed and no questions asked, and from that point on no military weapons, no semi automatics allowed, all weapons licensed, and secure, no carry permits except for cops and licenced security and no concealed weapons and just maybe you need a change to the constitution rewording the second amendment
You could even have a gun buy back led recovery with a lot of cash flowing from disused and surrendered weapons. Just think 280,000,000 weapons at say $500.
How about you start with this solution
http://www.news.com.au/national/adel...-1226538565645
It doesn't matter what we do Clete. Drugs are illegal, but there is still a drug problem.
In Australia there was a sharp decline of crimes committed with firearms, but there was also a sharp increase of crimes committed with kinve/sharp weapon(s).
Australian Institute of Criminology - Homicide weapon statistics
Your gun buy back program cost your country over $500 million dollars.
I'm sorry, but I will not surrender my guns so that the criminals can have the run of the streets any more than they already do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom, still trying to perpetuate the circular argument? At least this time you have cited some evidence to back up your conclusion. The problem is that you only cherry picked the bit that supports your preconceived ideas. It would have been better to have to included the whole story. Alty's post gives some other equally important details.
Obviously you know about cherry picking arguments. Some made famous by certain global warming scientists. Some not so famous like the study in the Harvard link. I know you are not interested in my analysis of that particular study so I won't bore you with the details. Lets just say there is a fair bit of cherry picking going on in that study as well.
You know, all of this reminds me of a little story.
There were two alcoholics who couldn't accept the possibility that alcohol was making them drunk. Being the scientific types they decided to conduct a statistical and scientific approach to the problem.
At the end of the day they went to a bar and ordered what ever was on the menu that day. They also ordered strong spirits and water to dilute the spirit. As usual they drank to excess and got drunk.
The next day they went to a different bar and ordered a different meal to the one they had yesterday. They also ordered more spirits and water to dilute the drinks. But this time instead of Vodka they ordered Scotch Whiskey. Again they became very drunk.
On the third day they went to a different bar and yet again ordered a different meal. Once again they decided to drink spirits and thus ordered Bourbon and water.
Upon recovering from their hangover they concluded that all the variables pointed to the water being the cause of their drunkenness This is because water was the only thing that remained constant throughout the experiment.
Tut
Neither are linked to violence.He may have had some other mental health issues also ;but affixing the blame on Aspergers is a red herring .In my humble opinion ASPY is not even a mental problem . More likely I would explore which designer drug he was prescribed to deal with his 'mental health' issues ;and which of it's myriad of side effects was manifest .Quote:
asperger's/autism
Tut ;I see plenty of proposed solutions on this very posting that are not backed up by any serious empircal data . So why zero in on my comments except that they disagree with your preconceived perceptions?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:11 PM. |