I mean more specifically in this case how the system failed to such an extent that an openly delusional (in the psychological sense of the word) man in need of psychological care was able to purchase a gun with no problem and use it to kill an innocent child.Because the American government won't ban guns, and citizens get upset because they think it would violate their 2nd amendment, which it wouldn't.
But they do exist. I mean, I am not talking about taking guns away. Just, if you're a CCW holder OR are requesting a CCW permit, then go through a medical/mental/physical check.Crimes committed by CCW holders are extraordinarily rare.
What? I mean, what's the hidden agenda/message in my could-not-be-clearer post? I'm just saying that I think CCWs should go through checks. I'm not saying BAN ALL GUNS.It's called dog-whistle politics and I know it when I see it.
Crimes committed by CCW holders are extraordinarily rare.
It's called dog-whistle politics and I know it when I see it.
These claims are "most likely total nonsense" so they should be easy to disprove, correct? I expect to see the receipts on that one: please point to some information demonstrating that CCW holders are indeed highly represented in gun crime.
Holders of a CHL in Texas in 2001 to 2009 were almost universally a law-abiding population, like most individuals who shared their demographic characteristics. However, in those rare instances when they committed crimes—by contrast to criminality among nonholders of CHLs—they were more likely to be convicted for serious weapons-related offenses (illegally carrying a firearm, threatening persons with a firearm, or intentionally killing another person). The policy implications of this finding deserve consideration in discussions of changes in CHL policy, especially discussions of who may receive a CHL and where they can carry their handguns.
Repeal the 2nd. Confiscate guns.
It really isn't appropriate to attribute the actions of an individual to an entire group, regardless of your political beliefs. This is an unfathomable and unforgivable crime but one guy is not representative of an entire group no matter how convenient it is to pretend otherwise.
One mentally ill person did something terrible therefore tens of millions of others meeting a similar demographic do terrible things. Ok.
A society where a person this mentally ill can buy a gun is a society that needs to radically expand background checks on firearm purchases.
I mean more specifically in this case how the system failed to such an extent that an openly delusional (in the psychological sense of the word) man in need of psychological care was able to purchase a gun with no problem and use it to kill an innocent child.
I know the current system is unacceptable, but I didn't think it was THAT bad.
Each state has what's known as a National Guard. Although I think Texas has its own more military-like thing, because it was actually a sovereign republic for a few years before being annexed by the United States.The 2nd amendment doesn't need to be repealed, just take guns from civilians.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Every state has their own police and special response squads, I assume (I'm not American). They can act as a well regulated militia in that sense.
Yearly renewals of CCW permits. Do medical/physical/training checks then. If you clear them, you can keep your CCW.It is possible that he purchased the gun before he started developing paranoia since the article started he only recently started experiencing paranoia.
Was it mentioned how they found out he started experiencing paranoia? Were there any records of it or did they find out from his friends/family? Although I am in favor of expanded and improved background checks if there were no records of his paranoia they would had done nothing.
Unfortunately a lot of the times when someone starts developing mental problems it goes largely ignored by everyone until something bad happens (not necessarily someone getting killed/hurt).
The 2nd amendment doesn't need to be repealed, just take guns from civilians.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Every state has their own police and special response squads, I assume (I'm not American). They can act as a well regulated militia in that sense.
It really isn't appropriate to attribute the actions of an individual to an entire group, regardless of your political beliefs. This is an unfathomable and unforgivable crime but one guy is not representative of an entire group no matter how convenient it is to pretend otherwise.
No, but this is a direct consequence of the policy that makes it so easy to own guns, and it's ingenious to pretend otherwise.
Personally, i value the thousands of innocent lives lost over the rights of millions to bear glorified, killing toys.
It really isn't appropriate to attribute the actions of an individual to an entire group, regardless of your political beliefs. This is an unfathomable and unforgivable crime but one guy is not representative of an entire group no matter how convenient it is to pretend otherwise.
As much as I hate guns and hate how easy it is to get them, even I can see the foolishness in using one person as an example to make a flippant insinuation about all gun carriers.
One mentally ill person did something terrible therefore tens of millions of others meeting a similar demographic do terrible things. Ok.
Each state has what's know as a National Guard.
If people want to blame mental health for these recurrent tragedies, then they better be prepared to entirely overhaul the current system and end the reign of insurance companies over therapy. And no, a fiftieth protest vote to repeal Obamacare so millions lose their health insurance does not count as an overhaul.
Why is someone suffering from delusions allowed to buy a gun? How did this happen?
Yeah, I'm not sure why the 2nd and 3rd posters read it that way for.
The prevailing argument is that all those that possess a Concealed Carry Permit are responsible gun owners, this case proves that this isn't a guarantee.
Geez I feel terrible for the family, even more so that it's a friend that committed the crime.
So what you're saying... Is he wasn't a REAL Scotsman.
See you in the next thread!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3518334/
Basically, CCW rarely commits crimes because wealth white men rarely commit crimes. But when they do, it's much likely to be a weapon related offense.
Furthermore, since 2009, the laws related to CCW are far more lax and have expanded to a far greater number of people. It's very likely, although I can't prove it, that CCWs are commit an increasing number of crimes as the the number of holders increase.
Show me where CCW holders have killed thousands.
Unfortunately, the majority of Americans (including the Supreme Court) ignore the "well regulated Militia" part and focus solely on the "right to keep and bear Arms" part.
When will it end ffs
http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence
Congress extends a ban on CDC research on gun violence
Well, what if we WANT TO LIVE IN A COUNTRY WHERE WE DON'T WANT TO CONSTANTLY WORRY ABOUT GETTING MURDERED ANYWHERE, AT ANYTIME? WHAT THE FUCK DO WE DO THEN!?
These gun freaks are so fucking worried about the government persecuting them. What they should be worried about is a future where their fellow citizens treat them like lunatics and ostracize them if they own guns.
That's what the future's going to be like, and it will be great.
Generic "gun violence" equates with CCW holders murderig children everywhere. Ok.
It would, but the Supreme Court recently ruled that the 2nd Amendment was intended to mean that regular citizens could own private arms. And if you read what the Framers (aka the "Founding Fathers" but I hate that term) wrote about it, you'll see that that is the correct interpretation; most of them actually did envision individual, armed citizens.Oh okay. So would those be good enough to be considered "well regulated militias"? I know that most of the people who cry about their 2nd amendment rights don't even go to gun meetings or security conferences, so they sure as hell aren't "well regulated".
Generic "gun violence" equates with CCW holders murderig children everywhere. Ok.
That's not quite the same though. Unless being a Muslim means you carry around a Scimitar.Are events like the Boston Marathon bombing, Fort Hood attack, and San Bernandino shooting sufficient enough for people to reasonably cast wide, negative generalizations against Islam and the Muslims who practice it? I somehow doubt such rhetoric would be well received in this forum.
Holy shit guys your country is insane.http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence
Congress extends a ban on CDC research on gun violence
CC class should be two months long at the least followed with a written examination and hands on examination and target portion. Two grand to enroll nonrefundable if you fail, six months to a year waiting period to re enroll and licenses must be renewed every two years finally no more open carry. .But they do exist. I mean, I am not talking about taking guns away. Just, if you're a CCW holder OR are requesting a CCW permit, then go through a medical/mental/physical check.
1. Clear a mental check to demonstrate you're sane.
2. Clear a medical check to demonstrate you have proper vision/etc.
3. Clear a physical/weapons handling course/check to demonstrate you can handle the gun properly.
What? I mean, what's the hidden agenda/message in my could-not-be-clearer post? I'm just saying that I think CCWs should go through checks. I'm not saying BAN ALL GUNS.
It's pretty sad that you think I have an ulterior motive. Hell, if I wanted to say "ban all guns" I would say it out loud.
edit: oh, are you referring to the OPs comment at the end of his post? Ok, I can't claim to know what he meant or didn't mean by that, but I see it as just a fact. "Things work until they break". That's all there is to it.
I'll give you this one right wingers, mental illness can be blamed.
What the real gun issue is is that after almost 250 years the United States is starting to become a real, distinct culture, and these old rules aren't needed any longer. No one really knows what to do, but honestly having such an old constitution as the basis of our laws is probably kind of stupid anyway.
I know a simple solution, get a gun of your own, for protection against other gun owners!
“The CDC is there to look at diseases that need to be dealt with to protect public health,” Boehner said at a press conference last week. “I’m sorry, but a gun is not a disease. Guns don’t kill people — people do. And when people use weapons in a horrible way, we should condemn the actions of the individual and not blame the action on some weapon.”
What's hilarious is I COMPLETELY agree with everyone calling for better backgrounds etc. but immediately jumping to "see all these millions of CCW holders are murderers!" does NOTHING to bring anyone to the table and find solutions.
ANY FUCK COULD BREAK DOWN
ANY FUCK COULD BREAK DOWN
ANY FUCK COULD BREAK DOWN
ANY FUCK COULD BREAK DOWN
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3518334/
Basically, CCW rarely commits crimes because wealth white men rarely commit crimes. But when they do, it's much likely to be a weapon related offense.
Furthermore, since 2009, the laws related to CCW are far more lax and have expanded to a far greater number of people. It's very likely, although I can't prove it, that CCWs are commit an increasing number of crimes as the the number of holders increase.
Nice argument no one made.
Amazing how common this is in shooting threads.