Where, oh where will the next mass shooting be?

Which would be overturned by the courts in a heartbeat.

 

None of which changes or otherwise addresses the points raised in response to the established position on the part of yourself.

 

Then pursue more relevant and pertinent matters that are directly related to the subject of mental health.

 

Absolutely. I agree 100%. I have contacted my Congressman and told him I would like to see schizophrenic and demented individuals locked up where they can't get their hands on guns.

What are you doing to help the situation?

Rich

 

Don't know if you could do that. While schizophrenic and demented individuals might well be several orders of magnitude more likely to commit violent acts still, from what I've read the overwhelming majority of the do not actually commit violence.

 

A little like African Americans?

 

Well of course though what that has to do with this discussion I'm not sure of.

 

I'm just saying gun grabbers wouldn't be so quick to snatch them away from African Americans and single out a group of people who had done nothing yet wrong. Another way to think about it.

 

So do we lock up a few nut cases or take away everyone's AR?

 

We all know the Liberal answer to that.

 

How do you figure out if someone's a "nut case"?

What about someone who is suicidal most of their adult life?

Would you have locked up Abraham Lincoln or Winston Churchill? Churchill was so continually suicidal that he avoided standing near the edge of train platforms for fear he might throw himself on the tracks. He said "A single thought might end it all".

Yeah, one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century and a war hero continually had suicidal thoughts.

 

I couldn't care less about someone who is suicidal. Why would I care if they were locked up? They pose no problem to me. Churchill may have been a great leader but he wasn't much good at the suicide thing.

 

This country doesn't have the balls. Taking a specific weapon off the market isn't taking away anyone's right to bear arms but the extreme gun nutters are too dumb to figure that out.

 

Bigotry enough?

 

Because anyone with half a brain understands it would solve nothing and open the doors to banning even more.

 

Except the united state supreme court has already ruled that such is indeed the case. The united states government cannot prohibit the legal ownership of even a single type of firearm that is available for legal ownership on the private market.

 

I think their fear is that if one can be taken off the market then other guns can too and where does it end.

That being said...it's disingenuous for people to say they want "assault" weapons banned because of the threat they pose, when handguns are used to kill more people than "assault" weapons.

 

Agreed. Handguns are the much bigger problem

 

Whereas I would say people are the bigger problem. As you know a firearm can't do anything on its own.

 

And seeing as the united state supreme court has ruled that the type of firearm responsible for the most deaths in the united states cannot be prohibited from legal ownership, there is no legitimate reason to believe the type of firearm responsible for the least deaths in the united states can be prohibited from legal ownership either.

 

Neither can weaponized anthrax or sarin gas

 

And what purpose would a person need weaponized anthrax or sarin gas? Could either of those be used to hunt? Target shoot? Defend ones home or self?

 

There is also the matter of such substances being prone to directional change by a simple gust of wind, whereas a firearm is not.

 

Need? Rights are now based on need?

 

Your avoidance of answering my questions is duly noted. Cheers!