Culture of Shootings , "Thoughts and Prayers" But No Solutions

Rare??? Perhaps folks are getting desensitized to the shootings. as they are frequent enough to be more than a little concerning.

 

We have NO safety regulations affecting the public in any field of endeavor that haven''t received organized opposition.

And, your second sentence seems based on the false premise that gun legislation necessarily means causing people to not be able to own firearms - something that is pretty much NEVER true for those without police records.

 

I didn't say anything about 'borderline.' All types of people who worry that their condition may be used to justify restrictions on their rights are more likely to avoid treatment.

Um... why not? Mental illness =/= incompetence. That stigma (placed on them mostly by the ignorant) is another large barrier to folks seeking help. They don't want to unfairly be labelled like that. In fact, one of the groups more prone to mental illness are the highly intelligent/high IQ, whom are also more prone to substance abuse, and one of the theories for this correlation is that they think they can self medicate and avoid the 'side effects' of an official diagnosis.

As to your assertion that 'disrespect for medical science' may warrant restrictions... well, I don't even know what to say, other than that mentality is only going to create more 'disrespect for medical science'. It seems you don't even understand basic psychology...

And they still cause people to hesitate to seek the help that is also needed. The question is, which one creates more diminishing returns on the other? If they don't seek help because they fear restrictions, the restrictions are not going to prevent anything because they havn't been identified as needing restrictions. The restrictions are therefore, part of the time, self-defeating. But how much?

well, not 'anything'... but we could certainly stop creating more barriers to the mentally ill seeking help.

 

That is how any political group sees things, that is the definition of politics

 

As I expected:
- You cannot define the "problem".
- You cannot demonstrate that said "problem" actually exists.
- You cannot demonstrate the necessity for and efficacy of whatever solution you propose to address this "problem".

 

Nothing here changes the fact someone lied to you about this, and you fell for it.

 

I see you you aren't familiar with the NICS. No real surprise.
Read this and mitigate your ignorance.
https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics

Fact remains: There's no rational basis for any claim that the gun store broke the law.

 

Guns are readily available for any criminal that wants one in Australia. Surely you know that.

 

They do, when someone is harmed or placed in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger - like when someone shoots a round straight up in the air.
Simple ownership and possession of a firearm harms no one, and places no one in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger -- as such, there's no exception to be found.

 

Says he who believes the pro-gun side should just give him was he wants and is part of the problem if it does not.

No you aren't. You want unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding.

 

This is America.
It's also about the culture of not treating those that are mentally ill.

Put the 2 together and the result is mass shootings.

 

Well whoop dee do.....I've noted on this thread that you've done a lot of dancing around the maypole, why not just come right out and tell us YOUR ideas on the subject, not that it's any real mystery.....gulags for gun owners, maybe? Bye now.

 

Every issue has a solution. But there has to be a will.

 

We already do.

You think the southernors would not have fought the crown, when they fought the crown AND the union?

That;s nice.
Now, on to this part:
423,000,000 guns; 30-35k gun-related deaths per year, where 70-75% of those people chose to die.
Don't see it. Demonstrate the necessary relationship.

 

Prayers for a Christian revival would be good prayer to have. These types of hatred, and acts done out of despair are done by people who need Jesus.

 

If he bought the gun from an FFL, he either passed the background check mandated by federal law, or the FFL broke the law.
Period. Full stop.

 

1 The relationship of the colonies with England was very different than that of Canada and England. We were a major economic vallue with huge investment. I'm sure we would have continued to oppose the rule of England, the totally unfair taxation, etc. But, had we lost the revolutionary war it would have taken a lot of time to build up again tot he point where England could be resisted - time during which England wouldn't just stand by.

2 England diden't end slavery in India until 1861 - the year of the beginning of our civil war.

3 Hitler thought GB would form a treaty due to the blitz - that the cost to GB would be seen by them as too high. I don't believe being a commonwealth nation would have prevented Hitler's blunder on that, nor does that sound like something that would stop Hitler's expansion across the continent - before OR after he learned the truth about GB resolve.

4 Yes - Australia had the guts to change. We didn't. And, it looks like we STILL don't.

Other countries had plentyof wars, too. We forget the French revolution, the English civil wars of 1640 (?) and other conflicts that they both lived through in their own homelands.

I think it may have more to do with how totally untouched we have been.

We didn't get taught the lessons of London, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Dresden, Paris, Berlin, and the many, many others.

OUR experience has been that we send huge guns and the enemy all dies!

Our whole US relationship with the world is fundamentally based on our ability to wage war in a way that Earth has never seen.

As one person in our government once said before we slaughtered Iraq, our foreign office was shrunk to the size of our military marching bands.

==> Why negotiate, when if they don't agree we can kill every last one of them?

 

I like this from CNN, "Within an hour of the Boulder killings, the National Rifle Association tweeted the Second
Amendment. It later retweeted it. Nothing more."
We had a mass killing in Tasmania by a mentally ill guy - after that we removed these 'semi-automatic' or
'assault rifles' from sale. Never had such a killing again.

ps the South would not have had such a dependency upon slaves if America remained in the Commonwealth.
Gaining 'independence' doesn't appear to have had tangible results in terms of freedom. To me I see it as a
'freedom' for the govt but no more or no less 'freedoms' for common people. Being under the Queen doesn't
effect my freedoms at all, rather - it has enhanced them through the right for a higher appeal to a non-political
authority.

 

Too much to unpack here - but it's interesting. Thanks.

 

Simple. Obvious. Truthful.
The NRA's statement reiterates the words of the Supreme Court:
...the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.

-How many did you have before that shooting?
-Given your answer, above, why do you think the law prevented future shootings?
-Why can't you wake to the news of a mass shooting in some Aussie city tomorrow morning?
-Does your constitution protect the right to own and use all "bearable arms" from infringement?

Snort
Demonstrate this to be true.

Americans have the same freedoms you have.

 

So, we all need YOUR religion? Serously???

The acts we do today are those of a nation that is mostly Christian. Christianity is not currently helping us value the lives of others.

So far, religion has given us the strong belief that only we are right as we select others to be seen as surrogates of Satan.

And, even as YOU say that covers the poor (who wouldn't need help if only they coverted to your religion), racial minorities, those of other religions, etc.

We belive that so strongly that we work to make democracy fail!

Obviously, it appears our national interpretation of Christianity doesn't square with the New Testament.

But, it seems pretty clear how America interprets Christianity.

 

I defined the problem as the US having 5X the gun deaths of every other first world country.

And, that is easy data to find. You can ask google for cites of that with a direct query.

I've discussed your third bit of crap.

 

Jesus, yes. Christianity, no. The teachings of Jesus and Christianity diverged significantly about 1700 years ago.

 

??
I have NEVER proposed that people should not be able to own guns - at least as long as there isn't legitimate reason related to a specific idividual.

The losest I came was to suggest that cities and states should have more room for making local regulations.

There is a big difference between Wyoming and Washington, D.C. as I pointed out. Suggesting they HAVE TO have the same law on guns is just plain STUPID.

 

I did above somewhere - within the last 2 hours, I'm sure.

You'll be back!!