Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[Pogo]

Yes, you are one of "those" people that think things should be easy and free (paid for by blood and effort from someone other than yourself) and not require putting up any effort or fight at all. Your right to welfare is is a dictate in the constitution, correct?

Uh.... nnnnnnnnnno. And your strawman has nothing to do with my post at all.

Why don't you respect your own Ignore button; you obviously can't handle this.

I'm not clear what your actual point is, Pogo, can you boil it down?

I did that in post 1116. And I got a nice red herring for it, just in time for lunch. ::urp::
Something about "welfare", which has zero to do with the good-vs-evil dichotomy that I actually posted about.

Btw I agree with your previous post, the drug dealer analogy. We can't address cultural values by throwing laws at them. We should have learned that with Prohibition.

 

[kaz]

Uh.... nnnnnnnnnno. And your strawman has nothing to do with my post at all.

Why don't you respect your own Ignore button; you obviously can't handle this.

I'm not clear what your actual point is, Pogo, can you boil it down?

I did that in post 1116. And I got a nice red herring for it, just in time for lunch. ::urp::
Something about "welfare", which has zero to do with the good-vs-evil dichotomy that I actually posted about.

Btw I agree with your previous post, the drug dealer analogy. We can't address cultural values by throwing laws at them. We should have learned that with Prohibition.

Yes, cultural values is the issue. There isn't a clear societal view to get rid of drugs or guns regardless of one's position on them. Abortion, the death penalty being other examples. I have different positions on those issues, I'm just saying the minority or even a plurality will not be effective forcing it's will on everyone.

 

[kaz]

Who gives a **** what the Slave-Rapists who wrote it thought. It's what WE think it is now that matters. This original intent bullshit doesn't fly with me.

As concerned as I am about what flies with you, let's discuss how the Constitution is to be changed.

Originally, they put 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4 in order to change the Constitution. Does that process still fly with you? Or has that changed as well?

 

[kaz]

If any one wants the links to the research in this video, go to http://www.freedomainradio.com

Good video, mister beale. I like the way they put the Europe argument, correlation doesn't prove causation. Saying "The UK" isn't an argument.

 

[kaz]

Adam Lanza having access to mommy's arsenal doesn't work for us. Get it?

I do get it. You're just a really shitty problem solver. Taking guns away from people that aren't dangerous doesn't prevent what Adam Lanza did. Not only should he have not had a gun, I would debate his mother shouldn't have either. Those two people however have nothing to do with the literally millions of other responsible gun owners.

That is it in a nutshell. Liberals like Joe and Candy are convinced that the solution to mass shootings is taking guns away from people who aren't shooting anyone. They can't explain it, they don't have an argument for it other than just assuming it's true. But they believe it as strongly as water is wet.

 

[MisterBeale]

If any one wants the links to the research in this video, go to http://www.freedomainradio.com

Good video, mister beale. I like the way they put the Europe argument, correlation doesn't prove causation. Saying "The UK" isn't an argument.

That's why he's the net's number one philosopher. He distills all issues down, avoiding all logical fallacies. Logic is, after all, a sub-discipline of philosophy. It is training the brain to think. There is no partisan agenda to any of his videos, just facts and reason.

It's like going to Spock for advice.

 

[JoeB131]

[

There ARE no rights. Never were. There is what society will let you have.

You really are about a ******* idiot, aren't you?

Have you never read ANY of our Founding Documents?

Do you not understand the very basis that ALL of our Founding Documents stand on?

It's called "Natural Law".

You're just a nasty little man that needs to be locked up somewhere.... Permanently

Natural Law is bullshit.

And no, I don't take the musing of guys who talked about equality and freedom, and then went home and raped teenage girls that they owned, terribly seriously.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I do get it. You're just a really shitty problem solver. Taking guns away from people that aren't dangerous doesn't prevent what Adam Lanza did. Not only should he have not had a gun, I would debate his mother shouldn't have either. Those two people however have nothing to do with the literally millions of other responsible gun owners.

The problem is, there isn't a gun owner who isn't potentially dangerous because there isn't a person who isn't potentially dangerous.

Earlier, one of the mutants (the one who uses a Confederate Flag as a avi and doesn't feel the least bit embarrassed by it) said he wishes HE had been at that indicent with the bikers and the SUV driver.

Now think about it. None of those people had criminal records, none of them were even really bad people. But a combination of fear, anger and bad judgement resulted in a rather bad situation. Now imagine if they had guns.

[

No, that's EXACTLY what they do, when they fight against background checks, waiting periods, and more importantly, market military grade weapons to the civilian market. The purpose is to keep Nancy Lanza just scared enough so she wants to buy more guns, too.

My debate skills are the problem? The above would be considered nothing more the unsubstantiable, unevidenced opinion in high school debate. Not only that, the evidence you did feabily attempt to support it with was a flat out lie. You claimed it was from a gun manufacturer yet provided no evidence as to where it came from at all. Don't tell me I'm the one that would fail at high school debate.

Uh, guy, there's no dispute that the Gun Manufacturers run the NRA.

This Is How The Gun Industry Funds The NRA - Business Insider

And whenever somene proposes even the most modest gun laws, the NRA is out there trying to defeat it.

No, design is probably the overriding factor. While the car makers are striving to make their products safer every year, the gun makers are striving to make their products deadlier.

Again unsubtantiable opinon. Unsuported and in fact contradicted. If it were true that design mattered, than guns ought to be the number one killer in america by your defintion. They are not.

Well, no, you see when you kill someone with a gun, the police treat it as a crime. Car accidents are largely excused. So, no, not really. Frankly, the "Cars are worse" argument is kind of lame. People use their cars every day. Most people do not use their guns every day.

Guy, I understant it perfectly,

There ARE no rights. Never were. There is what society will let you have.

And if you happened to be Japanese in January 1942, you were basically fucked. They could take all your shit and lock you up in a camp for the duration of the war. And everyone thought it was a wonderful idea at the time.

Just because someone's rights were deprived, unjustifiably I might add, does not prove rights don't exist.

No, it proves they are a figment.

Old Ito probably thought he had rights. Until he got the notice he was going to a concentration camp for the duration. No trial. no right to his property.

Now, if there were rights that were CLEARLY understood by everyone, the courts would have found this wrong. Ummm. Nope. The SCOTUS found in Korematsu vs. US that the government was completely within its power to incarcerate 110,000 people for no other reason than their ancestory. And I'll bet they even took away their guns.

Incidently, I wouldn't go so far as to say it was "unjustifiable". We were at war. The invasion of the West Coast was a plausible thing. And given the Axis powers found collaborators in every country they occuppied or invaded, probably a good idea to lock up the people you weren't sure of.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

[

I do get it. You're just a really shitty problem solver. Taking guns away from people that aren't dangerous doesn't prevent what Adam Lanza did. Not only should he have not had a gun, I would debate his mother shouldn't have either. Those two people however have nothing to do with the literally millions of other responsible gun owners.

The problem is, there isn't a gun owner who isn't potentially dangerous because there isn't a person who isn't potentially dangerous.

Earlier, one of the mutants (the one who uses a Confederate Flag as a avi and doesn't feel the least bit embarrassed by it) said he wishes HE had been at that indicent with the bikers and the SUV driver.

Now think about it. None of those people had criminal records, none of them were even really bad people. But a combination of fear, anger and bad judgement resulted in a rather bad situation. Now imagine if they had guns.

[

My debate skills are the problem? The above would be considered nothing more the unsubstantiable, unevidenced opinion in high school debate. Not only that, the evidence you did feabily attempt to support it with was a flat out lie. You claimed it was from a gun manufacturer yet provided no evidence as to where it came from at all. Don't tell me I'm the one that would fail at high school debate.

Uh, guy, there's no dispute that the Gun Manufacturers run the NRA.

This Is How The Gun Industry Funds The NRA - Business Insider

And whenever somene proposes even the most modest gun laws, the NRA is out there trying to defeat it.





Well, no, you see when you kill someone with a gun, the police treat it as a crime. Car accidents are largely excused. So, no, not really. Frankly, the "Cars are worse" argument is kind of lame. People use their cars every day. Most people do not use their guns every day.

Guy, I understant it perfectly,

There ARE no rights. Never were. There is what society will let you have.

And if you happened to be Japanese in January 1942, you were basically fucked. They could take all your shit and lock you up in a camp for the duration of the war. And everyone thought it was a wonderful idea at the time.

Just because someone's rights were deprived, unjustifiably I might add, does not prove rights don't exist.

No, it proves they are a figment.

Old Ito probably thought he had rights. Until he got the notice he was going to a concentration camp for the duration. No trial. no right to his property.

Now, if there were rights that were CLEARLY understood by everyone, the courts would have found this wrong. Ummm. Nope. The SCOTUS found in Korematsu vs. US that the government was completely within its power to incarcerate 110,000 people for no other reason than their ancestory. And I'll bet they even took away their guns.

Incidently, I wouldn't go so far as to say it was "unjustifiable". We were at war. The invasion of the West Coast was a plausible thing. And given the Axis powers found collaborators in every country they occuppied or invaded, probably a good idea to lock up the people you weren't sure of.

Well except the Courts did NOT find it justified at all. But you keep lying, it suits you.

As to guns are designed tio kill argument and that that is all they are good for, we have over 300 million guns in private hands yet less than 11000 murders a year, kinda proves your claim is absolute BULLSHIT.

And again since according to you , guns are designed solely to kill why woiuld insurance pay for a firearm doing its job? You have yet to display for us a defective firearm.

 

[JoeB131]

[


Now, if there were rights that were CLEARLY understood by everyone, the courts would have found this wrong. Ummm. Nope. The SCOTUS found in Korematsu vs. US that the government was completely within its power to incarcerate 110,000 people for no other reason than their ancestory. And I'll bet they even took away their guns.

Incidently, I wouldn't go so far as to say it was "unjustifiable". We were at war. The invasion of the West Coast was a plausible thing. And given the Axis powers found collaborators in every country they occuppied or invaded, probably a good idea to lock up the people you weren't sure of.

Well except the Courts did NOT find it justified at all. But you keep lying, it suits you.[/QUOTE]

No, actually, they did.

Korematsu v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As to guns are designed tio kill argument and that that is all they are good for, we have over 300 million guns in private hands yet less than 11000 murders a year, kinda proves your claim is absolute BULLSHIT.

Uh, no, not really. We have more than 32,000 gun deaths a year. and 79,000 gun injuries.

But if we were to apply your logic to airplane hijackings, the fact is, on the day of 9/11, there were 1500 airliners in the air. ONly four of them were flown into buildings. 30,000 flights a day. 9 million a year. And yet we pass all these crazy new laws because four planes were used one time to crash into buildings and kill people?

Kind of see the point, there, guy. When something is potentially dangerous and is misused, if you have a lick of sense, you make sure it doesn't happen again.

And again since according to you , guns are designed solely to kill why woiuld insurance pay for a firearm doing its job? You have yet to display for us a defective firearm.

And now you went off on a tangent. Fact is, most gun deaths, insurance doesn't pay.

 

[Geaux4it]

 

[kaz]

It's sad that you don't think human beings have it in them to prevent 10,000 deaths a year (Sgt's stat--we all know the actual number is much higher)

This again is begging the question. A favorite liberal tactic. I am saying what you are doing isn't working. Your answer to the question in the op, HOW you're going to do it, is to assume that what you are doing now will work, which it doesn't. Again, that's called begging the question.

My solution is to allow people to defend themselves. I am conceding nothing like the words you put in my mouth. So again, here's what's wrong with your strategy.

Say a gun costs $400, you're saying you'll take steps to increase the price. If it goes to $500, it probably has little affect. As it goes to $600, at some point you incent those already dealing drugs and new players to start finding and buying guns in people's private collections and buying them overseas and smuggling. The criminals buy these guns, honest Americans don't. So, you end up with.

1) What happens with drugs now, which was my point.

2) Criminals have guns and honest citizens don't, which is what we have now.

You are the one who's giving up on addressing the murders by waiving your hands and saying combining what we are doing now with guns and drugs, neither of which work now, bam, will suddenly work! If we give it enough time...

 

[Bern80]

Adam Lanza having access to mommy's arsenal doesn't work for us. Get it?

I do get it. You're just a really shitty problem solver. Taking guns away from people that aren't dangerous doesn't prevent what Adam Lanza did. Not only should he have not had a gun, I would debate his mother shouldn't have either. Those two people however have nothing to do with the literally millions of other responsible gun owners.

That is it in a nutshell. Liberals like Joe and Candy are convinced that the solution to mass shootings is taking guns away from people who aren't shooting anyone. They can't explain it, they don't have an argument for it other than just assuming it's true. But they believe it as strongly as water is wet.

I heard an interesting commentary on this debate a few days ago that I found had merit. The common denominator in all these mass shootings is not guns. The commonality in all these mass shootings is a PERSON with a history of mental issues. Lanza, Loughner, etc. All were screwed up in the head. So was the gal who went on a rampage with here car in DC recently. You'll notice the media isn't covering this and people like Joe aren't screaming for the ban of cars. Same type of situation, she just used a car instead of a gun. Anyway, way back in the day it used to be legal to commit people involuntarily to a mental health care facility. I believe it was Kennedy that made that illegal, so now people can only voluntarily commit themselves. That needs to be the national focus. What do we do with these people with sever mental illness that are a danger to themselves and society? No one seems to want to talk about that.

 

[Pogo]

I do get it. You're just a really shitty problem solver. Taking guns away from people that aren't dangerous doesn't prevent what Adam Lanza did. Not only should he have not had a gun, I would debate his mother shouldn't have either. Those two people however have nothing to do with the literally millions of other responsible gun owners.

That is it in a nutshell. Liberals like Joe and Candy are convinced that the solution to mass shootings is taking guns away from people who aren't shooting anyone. They can't explain it, they don't have an argument for it other than just assuming it's true. But they believe it as strongly as water is wet.

I heard an interesting commentary on this debate a few days ago that I found had merit. The common denominator in all these mass shootings is not guns. The commonality in all these mass shootings is a PERSON with a history of mental issues. Lanza, Loughner, etc. All were screwed up in the head. So was the gal who went on a rampage with here car in DC recently. You'll notice the media isn't covering this and people like Joe aren't screaming for the ban of cars. Same type of situation, she just used a car instead of a gun. Anyway, way back in the day it used to be legal to commit people involuntarily to a mental health care facility. I believe it was Kennedy that made that illegal, so now people can only voluntarily commit themselves. That needs to be the national focus. What do we do with these people with sever mental illness that are a danger to themselves and society? No one seems to want to talk about that.

Your point has merit in drawing attention to the mentality rather than the object. A disturbed mental state is certainly by definition required for such an event. But so equally is a gun -- you cannot have a shooting without a gun. So clearly both are required.

The underlying root cause goes back to a collective mental state, i.e. the national gun fetish. A gun cannot kill without some wacko wielding it. But the wacko who does so chooses that method because of the cultural obsession with that instrument, which as an endless diarrhea of TV cop shows and movies and sensationalist media all remind us daily, is a remarkably efficient way to blow people away from a distance. If that's what one's mental state demands.

The problem lies not in our guns but in ourselves. To our own cultural icon we are underlings.

 

[Bern80]

The problem is, there isn't a gun owner who isn't potentially dangerous because there isn't a person who isn't potentially dangerous.

Earlier, one of the mutants (the one who uses a Confederate Flag as a avi and doesn't feel the least bit embarrassed by it) said he wishes HE had been at that indicent with the bikers and the SUV driver.

Now think about it. None of those people had criminal records, none of them were even really bad people. But a combination of fear, anger and bad judgement resulted in a rather bad situation. Now imagine if they had guns.

And there isn't a person that isn't potentially dangerous with a car. And the commonality of these mass shootings is not guns. The commonality is a person with a history of mental issues. Lanza, Loughner, The WV guy. And I notice you're not concerned about cars over the gal that just went on a rampage in one in DC.

Uh, guy, there's no dispute that the Gun Manufacturers run the NRA.

This Is How The Gun Industry Funds The NRA - Business Insider

And whenever somene proposes even the most modest gun laws, the NRA is out there trying to defeat it.

Uh, that's entirely seperate issue from what you said, 'guy'. You said gun manufacturer's market to murderers. That's rather different than who has what influence on the NRA. Stop trying to change the subject. Pick one topic and stick with it.

Well, no, you see when you kill someone with a gun, the police treat it as a crime. Car accidents are largely excused. So, no, not really. Frankly, the "Cars are worse" argument is kind of lame. People use their cars every day. Most people do not use their guns every day.

If you really want to get this as apples to apples as it can get then you also must figure intent into the equation. Yes, if you intentionally go and kill someone with a gun it will be treated as a crime. If you intentionlly kill someone with your car, trust me, you won't be 'excused'. Even if accidental death with either case, there is an equally reasonable chance you could be charged with manslaughter

No, it proves they are a figment.

Old Ito probably thought he had rights. Until he got the notice he was going to a concentration camp for the duration. No trial. no right to his property.

Now, if there were rights that were CLEARLY understood by everyone, the courts would have found this wrong. Ummm. Nope. The SCOTUS found in Korematsu vs. US that the government was completely within its power to incarcerate 110,000 people for no other reason than their ancestory. And I'll bet they even took away their guns.

Incidently, I wouldn't go so far as to say it was "unjustifiable". We were at war. The invasion of the West Coast was a plausible thing. And given the Axis powers found collaborators in every country they occuppied or invaded, probably a good idea to lock up the people you weren't sure of.

Which they eventually did. But since most the great philosophers disagree with you on this point, I'm curious how you determined there is no such thing as rights, even the most basic like self determination. Again someone depriving someone of rights does not prove rights don't exist. In the above you again contradict yourself. You say they were apprehended ONLY because of their ancestry than later say well no, it was that plus we were at war.

 

[Bern80]

That is it in a nutshell. Liberals like Joe and Candy are convinced that the solution to mass shootings is taking guns away from people who aren't shooting anyone. They can't explain it, they don't have an argument for it other than just assuming it's true. But they believe it as strongly as water is wet.

I heard an interesting commentary on this debate a few days ago that I found had merit. The common denominator in all these mass shootings is not guns. The commonality in all these mass shootings is a PERSON with a history of mental issues. Lanza, Loughner, etc. All were screwed up in the head. So was the gal who went on a rampage with here car in DC recently. You'll notice the media isn't covering this and people like Joe aren't screaming for the ban of cars. Same type of situation, she just used a car instead of a gun. Anyway, way back in the day it used to be legal to commit people involuntarily to a mental health care facility. I believe it was Kennedy that made that illegal, so now people can only voluntarily commit themselves. That needs to be the national focus. What do we do with these people with sever mental illness that are a danger to themselves and society? No one seems to want to talk about that.

Your point has merit in drawing attention to the mentality rather than the object. A disturbed mental state is certainly by definition required for such an event. But so equally is a gun -- you cannot have a shooting without a gun. So clearly both are required.

The underlying root cause goes back to a collective mental state, i.e. the national gun fetish. A gun cannot kill without some wacko wielding it. But the wacko who does so chooses that method because of the cultural obsession with that instrument, which as an endless diarrhea of TV cop shows and movies and sensationalist media all remind us daily, is a remarkably efficient way to blow people away from a distance. If that's what one's mental state demands.

The problem lies not in our guns but in ourselves. To our own cultural icon we are underlings.

I wouldn't go so far as to say we have a gun fetish. To me that's something people say when someone like me gets adamant about being allowed to have one. But that doesn't constitute a fetish. While I have a few guns, I'm not enamored with guns. I don't even think the Loughners and Lanza's of the world are enamored with guns. I think they were enamored with hurting people. I would grant you that their mental condition probably left them more suscieptible and influenced by media portrayal of them.

 

[Pogo]

I heard an interesting commentary on this debate a few days ago that I found had merit. The common denominator in all these mass shootings is not guns. The commonality in all these mass shootings is a PERSON with a history of mental issues. Lanza, Loughner, etc. All were screwed up in the head. So was the gal who went on a rampage with here car in DC recently. You'll notice the media isn't covering this and people like Joe aren't screaming for the ban of cars. Same type of situation, she just used a car instead of a gun. Anyway, way back in the day it used to be legal to commit people involuntarily to a mental health care facility. I believe it was Kennedy that made that illegal, so now people can only voluntarily commit themselves. That needs to be the national focus. What do we do with these people with sever mental illness that are a danger to themselves and society? No one seems to want to talk about that.

Your point has merit in drawing attention to the mentality rather than the object. A disturbed mental state is certainly by definition required for such an event. But so equally is a gun -- you cannot have a shooting without a gun. So clearly both are required.

The underlying root cause goes back to a collective mental state, i.e. the national gun fetish. A gun cannot kill without some wacko wielding it. But the wacko who does so chooses that method because of the cultural obsession with that instrument, which as an endless diarrhea of TV cop shows and movies and sensationalist media all remind us daily, is a remarkably efficient way to blow people away from a distance. If that's what one's mental state demands.

The problem lies not in our guns but in ourselves. To our own cultural icon we are underlings.

I wouldn't go so far as to say we have a gun fetish. To me that's something people say when someone like me gets adamant about being allowed to have one. But that doesn't constitute a fetish. While I have a few guns, I'm not enamored with guns. I don't even think the Loughners and Lanza's of the world are enamored with guns. I think they were enamored with hurting people. I would grant you that their mental condition probably left them more suscieptible and influenced by media portrayal of them.

Uhh.... hello? Look around you...


Btw AFAIK neither Loughner nor Lanza (nor Holmes, Klebold, etc etc etc) had a history of "hurting people". What was much more in their history is a feeling of powerlessness. There's a clue right there.

 

[Bern80]

Your point has merit in drawing attention to the mentality rather than the object. A disturbed mental state is certainly by definition required for such an event. But so equally is a gun -- you cannot have a shooting without a gun. So clearly both are required.

The underlying root cause goes back to a collective mental state, i.e. the national gun fetish. A gun cannot kill without some wacko wielding it. But the wacko who does so chooses that method because of the cultural obsession with that instrument, which as an endless diarrhea of TV cop shows and movies and sensationalist media all remind us daily, is a remarkably efficient way to blow people away from a distance. If that's what one's mental state demands.

The problem lies not in our guns but in ourselves. To our own cultural icon we are underlings.

I wouldn't go so far as to say we have a gun fetish. To me that's something people say when someone like me gets adamant about being allowed to have one. But that doesn't constitute a fetish. While I have a few guns, I'm not enamored with guns. I don't even think the Loughners and Lanza's of the world are enamored with guns. I think they were enamored with hurting people. I would grant you that their mental condition probably left them more suscieptible and influenced by media portrayal of them.

Uhh.... hello? Look around you...


Btw AFAIK neither Loughner nor Lanza (nor Holmes, Klebold, etc etc etc) had a history of "hurting people". What was much more in their history is a feeling of powerlessness. There's a clue right there.

I don't think I said 'history of hurting people'. I think I said history of mental issues. And The people around me? Like in this thread? Those defending the right to have guns I dont' see as too different from me. I can only speak for myself, but I don't spend great periods of time with 'guns and violence on the brain' so to speak. Most of the time I don't think about them. I don't even obsess over them when using them (for hunting mainly). I think a major component of this debate that gets glossed over is perception. This is really only my opinion, but I think people opinions about guns are shaped by their experience with them. If all you know about guns is what you see in the news and media as portrayed as you describe above, I can see how someone would have a negative opinion of them. That doesn't make the opinion correct. I, on the other hand, grew up in northern Minnesota, hunting as soon as I was legally allowed. I grew up in rural neighborhood, but most people in the neighborhood hunted, so I would guess growing up there were several hundred guns within a square mile of where I lived in private hands. Yet no one ever died from one or was even shot by one or even threatened by one that I'm aware of. None of the people I grew up hunting with seemed overly infatuated with their guns. Rather they're treated simply as a tool. Granted a tool to be treated responsibly, but to me saying people who want defend the right to bear arms have a gun fetish is kind of like saying a home builder has a hammer fetish. I get why some may think their is an obsession because when the conversation comes up about banning them or heavily regulation of course I and a lot of people start getting pretty adamant about being able to keep them.

 

[kaz]

I do get it. You're just a really shitty problem solver. Taking guns away from people that aren't dangerous doesn't prevent what Adam Lanza did. Not only should he have not had a gun, I would debate his mother shouldn't have either. Those two people however have nothing to do with the literally millions of other responsible gun owners.

That is it in a nutshell. Liberals like Joe and Candy are convinced that the solution to mass shootings is taking guns away from people who aren't shooting anyone. They can't explain it, they don't have an argument for it other than just assuming it's true. But they believe it as strongly as water is wet.

I heard an interesting commentary on this debate a few days ago that I found had merit. The common denominator in all these mass shootings is not guns. The commonality in all these mass shootings is a PERSON with a history of mental issues. Lanza, Loughner, etc. All were screwed up in the head. So was the gal who went on a rampage with here car in DC recently. You'll notice the media isn't covering this and people like Joe aren't screaming for the ban of cars. Same type of situation, she just used a car instead of a gun. Anyway, way back in the day it used to be legal to commit people involuntarily to a mental health care facility. I believe it was Kennedy that made that illegal, so now people can only voluntarily commit themselves. That needs to be the national focus. What do we do with these people with sever mental illness that are a danger to themselves and society? No one seems to want to talk about that.

It's a good point, but a tricky issue. Most people with issues don't start shooting people. Another issue is that if you start locking people up for what they say in large enough numbers, they will hear that's happening and refuse to talk to mental health providers. In the end, we're talking about people taking away someone else's freedom based on a perceived threat. Doesn't that scare you as well?

 

[kaz]

The underlying root cause goes back to a collective mental state, i.e. the national gun fetish

That's an idiotic way to put it. You obviously don't know any gun owners.

Democrats have a fetish about getting other people's money.