No, no it's not the gun laws and access to guns. Maybe the reason 'Merica has so many gun deaths is that the ratio of whacko, violent, assholes is above average. Not much you can do about that.
Just woke up turn TV on to hear yet another nut case with a gun.
by Still Totally ADD 146 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
sir82
Maybe the reason 'Merica has so many gun deaths is that the ratio of whacko, violent, assholes is above average.
Agreed!
Not much you can do about that.
Well hold on!
Every night I lock my front door.
If a "whacko, violent asshole" really wants in my house, he's just going to throw a cinder block through my window and climb in.
But by locking my front door, I at least make it harder for the not-quite-so-committed whacko violent asshole to come in.
Another example: There have been countless studies of how relatively easy it is to smuggle weapons thru TSA checkpoints in airports. BUT - the fact that the checkpoints are there undoubtedly at least slows down the not-quite-so-committed potential terrorists. If those safeguards weren't in place, would there be more, or less, airborne terrorist attacks?
Maybe, by making gun access much more difficult, we don't stop the one-in-a-million really-committed murderous lunatic from using a bomb instead of a gun.
But also maybe, we cut the 33,000 deaths per year by firearms in the USA down to 30,000, or 25,000, or 20,000.....
Maybe instead of 4 or 5 mass shootings per year, there are only 2 or 3....
What is in effect now is not sufficient. Does that mean the best solution is "do nothing"?
As I noted in an earlier post, I believe there are enough gun-nuts in this country that I don't really expect anything to change. I hope I'm wrong.
-
Queequeg
That was sarcasm btw...
Well, the not much you can do about it part anyway!
-
2+2=5
And you can say well Australia did it, they haven't had a mass shooting since, well they also don't have trucks driving through crowds in Australia. Also I read somewhere that Australia now again has as many gun owners as it did pre 96'!?!?! I don't have a good answer, and being able to say that is intellectual honesty, not grasping at straws.
Actually, at the beginning of this year, we did have a lunatic speed his car through Bourke Street in Melbourne and kill 6 or 7 people, injuring many more.
Guns are rife in Australia still but most are legal gun owners. A semi pistol on the black market can cost $9000 or more. Spending $40000 on a sub machine gun is not appealing to those who contribute to low level style crime. So the illegal guns only circulate on a much smaller scale now, partly due to the massive cost of firearms on the illegal market.
-
2+2=5
Finally what do you think about all gun owners being required to have gun insurance? Again I ask this question because none of those victims are protected financially for cost due to what happen to them. After all that is the reason we have car insurance in case we end up hurting someone with our car. To me this makes a lot of sense. If a gun is use to kill someone or hurt them at the very least the victim has some recourse to pay for medical or funeral expenses. I am really surprised the NRA has not come up with this idea
Shoot me in the leg! We'll play it off as a serious incident and make an insurance claim.
It could never work.
This is the way we all get raped with out CTP inurance in Australia, because so many are fraudulent.
-
scotsman
ISIS, lone wolves... guns, vehicles, knives... it's inevitably men. Why?
-
cofty
ISIS, lone wolves... guns, vehicles, knives... it's inevitably men. Why?
Testosterone.
It provides the trigger for all sorts of strengths and aptitudes that have shaped the world for the good but it doesn't come without risks.
-
Still Totally ADD
Just heard MGM gave 3millions dollars and there has been other large donations for the victims health care. Good for them. Still Totally ADD
-
MeanMrMustard
I don't think knee jerk reactions would work and I am under no illusions that even if all guns were banned there would not be a significant time for the access to weapons to really decrease but I don't think that is an argument to do nothing and accept the status quo.
I do not agree. Would a doctor start cutting into a patient just because “something” has to be done? It is very likely the doctor would make matters worse, not better.
Nobody, including the “nutters”, are saying stick with the status quo. What is being said is that you are cutting into patient because you are upset at the ass hole that did this - but don’t make it worse. Passing a law affects the law abiding. If it turns out the weapons used are already illegal, what does that imply about further legislation? To me it implies that the “something” we should do has nothing to do with more gun laws.
There really is no reason for your average citizen to own them.
There is if bad guys have them and good guys do not. -
MeanMrMustard
Still no motive for this guy. There has to be some reason.