Agreed Gary, but it started way before 1999, it's just started happening as of late, but there has been a systematic movement to removal of values and family core values from our society over the past 50 or so years that has resulted in the situation we are now in. From a tax penalty that married couples pay, to subsidizing single mothers with free education, rent, etc, while a married couple will have to pay their own way, while on one hand it seems like you are giving someone a chance, on the other hand, you're depriving another that same "opportunity" for doing things the "right way." In the early '60's a child born out of wedlock got a "Bastard" birth certificate, nowadays the MAJORITY of children born would get one..... Again, a lot of people think I'm crazy, but legalizing "convenience" abortions is part of the problem as I see it. Also agreed Ryan, I think we need to NOT publicize it so much as not to sensationalize it and give someone who may be a little unstable an idea of how they can be "memorialized" in a big way, after seeing what "that latest whackjob" did.....
Exactly, it doesn't mean they are "innocent" and don't need to be incarcerated. These people need to be studied. Find some common factors and maybe we can help the next one from acting out these acts. Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Exactly.... The AWB didn't expire until 2004. So my question for everyone is banning assult weapons really a solution to the problem? There is much more to it then this... A bann just gives the uneducated a false sense of hope / security. Duranged people can kill a lot of people with or without guns. Would their be a outrage over a bann on assult weapons if this guy would have chosen a different means to kill all these kids?
Unfortunately, what a lot of them have in common is that people thought they were a bit odd, and that they were oftentimes "expressing themselves" with their oddities.... Not saying all "odd' people are killers, but there ARE some similarities that should be looked at.... Several of them were WELL-TO-DO, and didn't want for much, not saying "spoiled" kids are murderors, but that may be a connection worthy of looking at as well..... I've personally seen more than a few kids whose parents rather than giving them time, and parenting just lined their pockets with green to substitute for the love and guidance they really needed.... And the end result was rarely a good combination... 3 of them have spent time in prison for drug related problems, one for involuntary manslaughter (a plea deal which probably should have been worse).... Responsibility for actions, and the golden rule ought to be the basis for our education system, and we can teach the "Three R's" after that.....
He was kind of making some sense in a round about way. Could have used less crazy talk in the middle. Nothing like taking credit away from the people that put their lives in harm's way, and giving it to god. Too bad god couldn't show up sooner. He must have been playing angry birds on his iphone 5s. You know he has the 5s before it comes out.
Vito I took it as him meaning those people were brave, selfless, and cared more for others than themselves. Basically a wwjd kind of thing. I didn't take it as him meaning God took over those people or that he was trying to take credit away from them, he was saying (imo) they had something extra in their hearts that made them want to protect and help. I'm not saying a non-christian wouldn't act the same way just saying that's how I interpreted what he said and I'm sure many people would not respond the way those folks did, and many would.
I found this article interesting. http://www.wzzm13.com/news/article/235751/2/Mass-killings-not-uncommon-in-US
That makes about as much sense as what he said. Around and around we go. Saying a lot, without really saying anything of substance.
Serious question. Do you think these numbers could have been worse without gun control? Any chance at all that the number killed would have been higher? If you answer yes, were the laws in place worth the lives saved?
Hell yes it's part of the solution obviously. Just like better background checks is part of the solution. And better security at schools is part. Doing nothing is cop out BS. And it's nothing new or crazy. The 1934 Firearms Act regulated gangster weapons (Machine Guns, street sweeper shotguns, silencers ) which was expanded in 1968 Safe Streets Act to include flamethrowers, grenades. landmines etc.. And the gun owners world did not come to an end. None of these are banned, they're regulated as Title II weapons. That's what they are proposing with assault weapons. If you really want one you can go thru the process. It means only really serious owners get seriously lethal weapons. Now technology has brought us the assault rifle at Walmart prices and hopefully it will be added to the list. If it stops one Newtown, it's worth it. The Newtown mother would not have bought a AR-15 if she had to go through the Title II firearm process. It's a pain in the *** and should be for these weapons. That's why you don't see bazookas at Cabela's.
Absolutely not, the guns for the most part were not bought or used legally. Why would any more or fewer laws change that? What would reduce those numbers is keeping violent offenders in jail where they belong. Keeping schools and streets safe so kids can go to school without fear of being assaulted. This would help break the cycle of gangs recruiting and forcing kids into that lifestyle. Family atmosphere is what alot of those kids seek. The gangs offer that. Those kids in those areas need some kind of family, if one isn't present at home, they need a viable alternative. (Heaven forbid it be through a church ) Doing these things would get kids the education they desperately need to compete for jobs. Jobs will break the cycle. Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Banning assault rifles has been done before, not sure how well it worked then. Would you still want assault rifles put in the list if they only hold 4 or 5 rounds in their clip like a " deer rifle " ? Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
I would think the ban that is most likely coming. I doubt they will go after what is already out there ( I could be wrong) Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
You still have to admit that the more guns that are available to be stolen or used in an area increases the risk that they will be used for something illegal. No way to prove it, but I would bet that more people would have died if the gun laws were loosened there.
Im going to answer further. As of 2007,67% of all gun violence happened in the 50 biggest cities in the US. Majority of those were in the inner cities. 73% of the offenders were between 10 and 19( they did not purchase a gun legally) 85% were male I would venture to say most of the guns used were either stolen or black market. Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
I understand that. But, if you never owned one before, why is it important to some now that they may be banned? If high-heels were being banned, are a bunch of you going to run out and buy them? I dont get it.
