Gun-control!

Long written response deleted due to this being internet.
The problem is bigger than guns, but assault rifles are not needed by civilians. They do not do anything to protect your freedom.
American culture has an issue with violence. IS there a single American culture? No. But I do think we need to examine big pharma, mass media, and the state of; delivery; and research of mental health.

 

Oh My good the liberal drivel I'm reading here. Not one of those shooter had a clean bill of mental Health.

They were batshit crazy.

After 911 we got the Patriot Act. After NewTown, we need the Mental Health Sentinel Act. Make it Federally mandated these people submit to weekly drug tests to make sure they are taking their meds, and administer it if they arent. They need to be counselled ,Put on a watch list, and institutionalized if need be. They are out of touch with reality, there's no telling when they will become violent.


We will never have National Universal Health Care, but we at least need it for mental Health, with a rider bill for stricter supervision and law enforcement and control.
The far left liberals making lame excuses for crazy nut-cases are just as bad as the NRA saying guns have nothing to do with the problem. Both sides share a portion of the blame, the lion share of it belongs to the mentally demented.
Until you admit mentally insane people are to blame , you are just taliking in circle s and spinning your wheels. These people, especially Michael Bloomberg, are just liberal pricks trying to promote their agenda. They don't give a shit about what happened and how they can stop it. During the Clinton Era you could not own a gun with a clip larger than 7 bullets. Memories are short. Attack the real problem: mentally unstable people. These same liberal charlatans are saying now "We need a gun Law to limit weapon Clips to seven bullets". Yeah, asshole politicians, because that really worked out well at Columbine. Throughout the early to late 90's Clinton's two term tenure as President, we had an assault rifle ban and a limit on clips sizes. We still had the Columbine massacre and several copy cats during that time. So it didn't accomplish jack-shit. All small clip sizes does is make the crazy bastard shooters better shots.

 

I wasn't making excuses for anyone you illiterate knuckle dragger. As far as keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill AND violent, I'm all for it. Am I going to sit here and advocate a 2nd amendment repeal either? No.

There's far more to the discussion than the latest glib "common sense" solution vaguely cribbed from an NRA press release. It's obviously an issue with more than one facet to it. The actual root of the problem can't be addressed with what you're proposing. It might prevent some instances of violence, but it will do so in the most coercive way imaginable. There is no Department of Pre-Crime and no mental health methodology that can specifically determine who will potentially shoot a bunch of people.

In fact the specific things you mention create new problems with civil rights based on your own (unsupported by evidence) presumption the mentally ill are all potentially violent and should be treated as potential criminals. How does the old chestnut go about liberty and safety? That applies to everyone equally, not just gun owners.

 

Who are 'these people', exactly, and how do we find them? Are you talking about every single person with any kind of mental/psychological problem in the country? Just those that show tendencies towards violence? Just those that have lead towards shootings in the past? How are you defining which people need screening, and how do we locate these people in the first place?

I mean, let's assume that I'm a prime candidate to go on a rampage (I'm not - this is just for argument's sake). I'm quietly coming up with my plan to do the deed, going about my business etc. At what point does your governmental-institution become aware that I'm a threat? Do we need to make every single person in the country submit to a psych-evaluation? How often do we need to revisit? Where's all the money coming to pay for all this?

You've no way of knowing how many more lives they would have taken if they had access to assault rifles and/or larger magazine/clips. However many people died that day could quite easily have been doubled with a more devastating weapon.

Reducing the devastation a person can cause isn't going to eliminate the problem; no one's claiming it will do - what it will do is reduce the devastation a person can cause. This alone should be a good enough reason. Yes, 10 people dead is still horrible and we need to find a way to stop it, but, in the meantime, if we can reduce that number to 5 people, or even 9 people, that's less tragedy and fewer people that have to grieve. I'd call that a small victory.

Again, there has to be a line at which a weapon is deemed excessive for home defence. A nuclear bomb is obviously a ridiculous thing to claim to use for home defence, so they're not allowed. Rocket launchers are not necessary for home defence. Land-mines? Hand-grenades? As far as I'm aware, none of those things are allowed, because they're deemed too dangerous and unnecessary. Why not apply the same train-of-thought to assault rifles? Or to large volumes of ammunition? Or to weapons that hold large volumes of ammunition? They're dangerous and excessive just the same.

 

Hmm this is a tough one. 1.My personal op is that guns are for punks, and no-one should have the right to pass judgement on another's life.​

​

2.If authority bans firearms, then most likely the violence will increase. Something like what happend during Prohibition with alcohol. That said, it depends on the persons', area/region, and how strict the ban is. ​

​

3.Since this country has the highest gun violence rate as a whole obviously the laws on gun violence aren't effective enough. Now lets look at Japan for example- I'm sure there is little if any gun violence over there mostly due to the law they put in order and the way the people react to it. ​

​

If I think of something else, ipih​

​

​

 

People shouldn't compare countries when it comes to its laws. Society as a whole is different in every country. What works in one country doesn't mean it will work in other countries.

 

I just heard a report this morning that says the FBI's own statistics have violent crime with guns down 49%. Also read another report recently that says the cause of most violent deaths in America comes from suicide. Pretty interesting. I wonder why this doesn't show up on any mainstream news shows amidst all the gun control talk lately.

 

That is because the people that want gun control will do anything in their power to scare people into thinking their cause is right. People that speak against gun control are the same way too. I can tell you for example (this is hypothetical and I don't believe it to be the truth at all) how video games should be banned and talk about only the bad cases where people with obvious mental issues try to copy what they see in violent video games. They will never mention how most people can tell the games they play are fictional and don't want to kill people in the same way as they do in MK or some other fighting game. It is all about trying to get what certain people want at all costs.

That is why i don't watch alot of news because they often to make you think a certain way like all people in Africa are at war etc. A person can be deceived by what they see and hear but real truth is still evident in its own way that isn't always obvious. If you just see what is out there for yourself you will see that alot of what you are told isn't always the whole truth or a complete lie it is up to each person to see that for themselves

 

Guns aren't going anywhere and crazy people aren't going anywhere.

However, just sayin', it's easier to spot a gun than a crazy person.

edit: I'm in agreement that mass shootings are a symptom of a much deeper problem and wrote up a huge dissection of issues that border on what many would consider conspiracy theory. But here's a fact: EVERYONE is for gun control...it's the level at which people want it. I don't think anyone thinks we should all have a right to nuclear arms. However, to paraphrase my long diatribe about America being land of the cattle and sheeple, gun control debate is a divide and conquer issue. While the mass majority spouts out stupid rhetoric about this, our bought and paid for government is busy not giving two shits about it while they continue to steal our liberty out from under us. "Look! The Goodyear Blimp!" *swipes liberty and freedom*. Haven't anyone noticed how divided our country is these days about things that don't matter in the overall grand scheme of things? This is why gun advocates fail miserably in my eyes. You who are for and do own guns have them for ONE reason alone. It's not to hunt. It's not cause someone broke in your house and is trying to steal your copy of Virtua Fighter and you want to defend yourself and your property. It's to stand up to tyrannical government. Ladies and gentlemen, if you do not think we are heading towards tyranny at all, you failed to truly exercise your duty given to you by the 2nd amendment. You bitch about it being a right to bear arms so no one should take your guns away. Well, with rights comes responsibility. You're failing your responsibility to organize a militia to retake the US government right now and you don't deserve the amendment nor the guns you're so eager to own.

I'm not for violence. I don't condone it in any form and I'm not suggesting people organize to go murder rampaging through DC. I'm saying right now, your government isn't working for you. They're working for special interests which take away your rights, the transparency of our government and if nothing is done to stop it now, you won't have those guns when the shit's really hit the fan.

 

On a tangent to my other post I saw this today

Grim Statistics: More U.S. Troops Committed Suicide In 2012 Than Were Killed In The Afghanistan War

http://www.thisis50.com/profiles/bl...ore-u-s-troops-committed-suicide-in-2012-than

 

A very interesting video

 

I've been following this subject for a few weeks now mainly from this thread called:

Another pair of actors in Sandy hoax exposed. 100% BUSTED!

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2083489/pg1

Its finally getting more light shed on it but mainstream news is purposely staying away from it.

 

To me the most truthful news comes out the day the event happens because that is when you get the witnesses that were there.

Magically all that day of interviews and video testimony is never brought up by the mainstream media or the government again and only the huge plot hole story is given.

It happened with 9/11, with the temple shooting, the theater shooting, and now this school shooting.

However, people are now fortunate to have the internet and history is now saved for people that want to do the research. Of course that is until an official government regulation takes over the internet.

 

I will tell you all right now if. This debate continues someone is going to get offended. Topics like this always lead to name calling, harsh words and. Offensive comments. You should all just agree to disagree not everyone shares the same beliefs in any subject of discussion no matter how. Logical one side may be in comparison to the other.

 

Knowledge is power and. This man is the hulk

 

Anyone notice that the US government is hunting down people for free exchange of information and transparency of government (aka whisteblowers, however that just has a bad ring to it...)?

Government 'urged' paypal and credit card companies to allow donations to wikileaks. Bradly Manning is on the lamb from the US government for exposing their dirty secrets AFTER they happened but is trying to charge him with treason for leaking information that could 'jeopardize operations and lives' (wait...for stuff that already happened?) and now the latest victim of such crackdown Aaron Schwartz, who was let off the hook by the company who's rules he infringed upon (they dropped all charges) yet the government stepped in and decided it would be best to fine him up to $1 million dollars and try to seek a penalty of 50 years in jail. And to top it off, they added 'wire fraud' to the list of charges...yet when banks commit wire fraud on a daily basis via microtransactions where they rig stock prices and other things that are normally dictated by 'fair trade', nothing happens despite mass evidence of it.

Control the flow of information, control the population. Control is synonymous with something that corrupts...I forget what that was again...can someone remind me? Cause I haven't personally had any in recent memory.

 

Also, Jackie Chan went on record recently to say that the United States is the most corrupt government around these days.

I can't agree 100% with him (UK is pretty fucking bad when it comes to looking the other way in terms of bankster gangsters too), but he's on the right track.

And see the funny thing is you could say 'MAN, HIS COUNTRY IS COMMUNIST!' Well, the difference is at least they're open about it. No little magic show going on while you watch the quarter disappear into thin air. They just take the quarter from you.