Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Zoom, Dec 17, 2012.
Why are they being so quiet about this shooting?
Interesting question. Keep in mind the NRA is a lobby supporting gun manufacturers, gun shops, licensed gun sellers, other gun sellers and gun huggers. It supporters unregulated capitalism which puts the laissez faire principle over an above the life of any six or seven your old in America.
They're amoral, the deaths of others is not on their radar, only profit matters to them. Hence, keeping quiet is in their best interests. Were they to speak they would risk defending the right to bear arms v. the deaths of children; an argument they cannot win over the anger of reasonable and responsible citizens.
What would you want them to say during this time of such sadness and grief?
I want them to do what they do during every mass shooting I have ever seen. They ALWAYS scream for more guns, less restrictions and more access.
JUST LIKE ALWAYS. Why are they quiet this time?
They ALWAYS scream for more guns? I must pay closer attention.
I assume that they realize unlike some of us here that this is not the time when the funerals are being planned and taking place and the investigation is still ongoing.
Do you oppose the NRA or gun ownership? I am just wondering what your beef is specifically. Why do you think they are not making any statements at this time?
It wasn't the NRA that failed to provide functional security that might have kept these kids alive. I would rather hear an explaination of why "zero tolerance" has been such an abysmal failure.
The NRA doesn't need to say anything.Too many anti-gun people are too obviously and gleefully using the bodies of these dead children to further the political agenda that failed to protect them in first place.
Same reasons most Repubs are.
It does seem that way. This thread proves it.
There are 270 million guns in the hands of about 65 million private gun owners. The responsible safety minded gun owners are in the tens of millions. The criminals and mentally ill who have obtained guns, through illegal means, amount to a few thousand. The killing of children is always a tragedy. Had he thought it through, he could have killed more by making napalm (easy to make), blocking exits and tossing them through windows. If a person wants to kill people there better ways to do it for a higher body count and we have no way to stop him/her. You could easily rig up a ten gallon propane tank and wipe out half the school. The issue remains, not the gun, but the individual.
The gun owner in this case, should have known better to have guns on the property with an unstable individual living there. The failure was the fault of the parent. She is to blame, as is the ACLU, who forced the government to release unstable people from institutions.
This is a really weird post. And, ignorant. The ACLU has only one purpose - to protect the Bill of Rights, including our right to "bear arms".
You say there should have been guns on the property. There were quite a few guns in Nancy Lanza's home. In point of fact, her own gun was used on her.
As for the body count, maybe he didn't know how to "wipe out half the school". Instead, he used the method he had been taught in his home and he used a semi-auto with a huge capacity.
Its nonsense to say Nancy Lanza should have known her son was going to go a killing rampage. Time after time, people are surprised when someone snaps and commits a mass murder or even one murder. No one can read minds and if you believe Nancy Lanza should have been able to read her son's mind, you need to read this -
'I Am Adam Lanza's Mother': A Mom's Perspective On The Mental Illness Conversation In America
Separate names with a comma.