It is important to know that states with strict gun laws DO have lower overall gun death rates. While not every country with strict gun laws has a low gun death rate, it is true that every country has – among other things in common – strict gun regulation. Switzerland, which has nearly as high gun ownership as the US, also has extremely rigid gun regulations including mandatory and repeated training, strict limits on which guns can be kept on the home, how much ammunition can be kept in the home, and serious background checking. You can’t stop every madman from attacking the innocents, but this is a small fraction of overall gun deaths – and you CAN reduce those numbers with proper NATIONAL regulation. (We don’t have national regulation which makes it easy to transport weapons across state lines. In NYC, 90% of the weapons used in crimes were brought in from states where gun purchasing is easy and virtually unregulated).
Following Varvel’s jackass logic… why are we banning drugs?
More guns in kindergartens. What could possibly go wrong?
Misleading subtext. Nobody is proposing banning guns. Nobody.
Remember that it was Reagan who closed the mental hospitals to save money.
“This wouldn’t have happened if…” your assumptions are just that. Why not add “if” the fire power was not available in the first place.
the Human Race has had “bans” and LAWS since Adam’s days…if a person wants to kill another person, all bans and all laws are ignored and violated. Killing can be done with a stone, a baseball bat, or any inanimate object or chemical.Guns do not commit murder.Cars do not commit murder, but more Americans die by reason of cars by accident or on purpose, and no one organizes to “BAN VEHICLES”….-Since the days of Stalin, the Communist Party goal includes “disarm the people”…that is the root and source of today’s ‘GUN CONTROL’ agenda publicity! Blaming guns does not originate with sane thinking.
So, Dr. Canuck. You think that it takes a lack of conscience to decide to protect innocent children? Very telling…
Not the same. Fool.
Riiiight so now the mother is a whack job… that is some serious denial you got going on.
1. In 30 years, there have been 62 mass shootings, including a number in states with liberal gun laws and a lot of armed citizens. Not a single mass shooting was ever stopped by a citizen with a gun.
2. Lanza DID grow up with both parents. His parents had only divorced three years ago.
3. The ACLU didn’t do any such thing; this is pure invention on your part as well.
But by all means, don’t let any ugly old facts get in the way of your kneejerk defense of assault weapons.
@gorebanepray tell, what do you base your assertion the mother was a wack job?that she owned assault weapons?that she taught her son how to shoot them. i haven’t seen any other evidence so far, besides those two items, that would make me consider her a wack job. unless, of course, you’re blaming the victim – she was murdered too, you know.
“Can you make your own assault weapon in your kitchen?”
According to the RCMP, yes. That’s why I’m not allowed to buy a starter pistol. I guess I’ll just have to rely on my regular pistol ::banghead::
Also, I don’t know anyone who is growing poppies or cacao in Canada, but both heroine and cocaine are available.
A. Very few people are calling for a ban on guns, and they’re as screwy as the NRA droids.
B. Prohibition didn’t work because a gutless Congress was careful to craft the law without teeth and failed to fund enforcement. Hmm … probably right on that one …
It is a simple statement of fact: No mass shooting has ever been stopped by a citizen with a gun.
By citizens without guns, yes.
By cops with guns, yes.
But armed citizens, although they have been present at mass shootings, have not been particularly useful.
Most people do not react in an immediate useful fashion, even when carrying.
And, the presence of guns in primary schools? That doesn’t really make anyone safer, it largely just increases the chances of accidents involving kids. Sadly, this is another well-documented historical fact.
On a separate note, no. The ACLU does not keep parents from getting mental health care for their kids. It has never done that. It has lobbied to prevent kids being given life imprisonment or death sentences. But if you think it is so “well documented”, then by all means, support your assertion.
Ah….I see by one of your other posts that perhaps you were talking about the “forcible institutionalization law.” Lanza had a completely clean record, up until this point. He had no diagnosis of mental illness at all. (Even if he did turn out to be Aspergers: Aspergers is NOT a mental illness.) His mother was perfectly free to seek a diagnosis on his behalf, as he was a minor up until two years ago, and there is absolutely no indication that his mother attempted to get any psychiatric treatment for him at all; and it would not have been prevented. And here’s the thing: Connecticut DOES have forcible institutionalization. The bill that was defeated by ACLU lobbying (among other groups) prevented only the weakening of regulation of forcible medication and institutionalization. The bill would have allowed forcible institutionalization on the advice of a single doctor, instead of requiring two doctors, and it would have allowed forcible medication by essentially anyone, as opposed to the current law, which only allows forcible medication by prescription in an in-patient setting.
Lanza could have been forcibly committed, on the advice of two doctors. He could have been medicated, but in fact, he had never been prescribed any medication.
The scores of right-wing blogs repeating that talking point almost verbatim, do not constitute “good documentation” of anything.
Your assertions are nonsensical and wrong. That’s not “nasty”, that’s just true. If you don’t like it, you should fact-check better.