School Shooters Under the Influence

[james&olya 1,121]

You can't stop crazy. In each case someone knew they had problems and did nothing, those who knew should be prosecuted. If their are no guns they will find another way, knife, bomb, fire, stick etc.

Crazy can be stopped but it takes resources and political will! The mentally ill cost money to treat. It costs money to identify them and petition the courts to take away their 2nd amendment rights. The right, in their zeal to give ever larger tax cuts to the rich, have gutted the programs that might have helped. You want all this to happen. Who will pay?

If there are no guns the death toll would be far, far lower!!! An incident in China occurred last week as well. They have their homicidal crazies also. But they have far fewer guns. He used a knife and injured over 20 children. They will all recover from their physical wounds. If you want to say that guns don't kill people then you must also say people don't kill people either. It takes a combination of a crazy person and a weapon. If you cannot eliminate the crazy person then maybe you can eliminate their weapons!

Edited December 18, 2012 by james&olya

[Ban Hammer 13,570]

I posted this in the other thread, background checks should be like military clearances. They should vett you, and your family, and closest friends. Before anyone gets a clearance, they is a thorough background check done on you. For Secret, they go back 5 years, Top Secret, 10 years. I have a TS and they called my parents, people I was stationed with and most of my friends. If there is some indication that you have a member that's close to you and has mental issues, that might warrant some concern.

are you gonna pay the cost of that investigation?

[Penny Lane 8,159]

are you gonna pay the cost of that investigation?

The person who wants the gun so badly can pay it.

[james&olya 1,121]

Same could be said about the anti gun nuts who just think restricting is the only solution.

When infact if you look at all these incident you find that there is problem with attackers mental health, no sane person would do something like this.

So it logically follows that the right wing, especially the 2nd amendment crowd, will come out strongly in favor of the higher taxes and the resource appropriations needed to deliver the level of mental health care needed to address the problem this way!!

Wait. I see you shaking your head and slinking away! So you are just another right wing hypocrite!

[Harsh_77 718]

The person who wants the gun so badly can pay it.

Is that the solution?

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Is that the solution?

Maybe. I've never pretended to know what the solution is.

[james&olya 1,121]

So fcuking what? He got his hands on the weapons, didn't he? That means the legal owner handled them irrepsonsibly leaving them some place where the killer could easily get his hands on them.

The bigger point is that we, as a society, have collectively failed to be responsible. We have allowed this grotesque proliferation of guns to occur by electing spineless cowards to congress and the white house who fail to stand up to the NRA crazies. We all have been irresponsible!

[Harsh_77 718]

Crazy can be stopped but it takes resources and political will! The mentally ill cost money to treat. It costs money to identify them and petition the courts to take away their 2nd amendment rights. The right, in their zeal to give ever larger tax cuts to the rich, have gutted the programs that might have helped. You want all this to happen. Who will pay?

If there are no guns the death toll would be far, far lower!!! An incident in China occurred last week as well. They have their homicidal crazies also. But they have far fewer guns. He used a knife and injured over 20 children. They will all recover from their physical wounds. If you want to say that guns don't kill people then you must also say people don't kill people either. It takes a combination of a crazy person and a weapon. If you cannot eliminate the crazy person then maybe you can eliminate their weapons!

Yes the case in China were all 20 kids would survive but cannot be compared each case are separate.

Adam Lanza had thought and planned his attack, as per some news article before he left his home he smashed his computer and smashed his hard drive and it was so badly damaged it would be hard to recover any evidence.

(Lets assume he had no access to gun)

He had time to destroy his computer and destroy evidence, would he not have enough time to research and execute some other option?

Maybe. I've never pretended to know what the solution is.

You said person purchasing the weapon would pay for the cost...

[Harsh_77 718]

The bigger point is that we, as a society, have collectively failed to be responsible. We have allowed this grotesque proliferation of guns to occur by electing spineless cowards to congress and the white house who fail to stand up to the NRA crazies. We all have been irresponsible!

This case was complete failure, where parent was in denial about their Childs condition.

When as parent you know your child has personality disorder how can one thing introducing them to guns would make them more responsible?

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Yes the case in China were all 20 kids would survive but cannot be compared each case are separate.

Adam Lanza had thought and planned his attack, as per some news article before he left his home he smashed his computer and smashed his hard drive and it was so badly damaged it would be hard to recover any evidence.

(Lets assume he had no access to gun)

He had time to destroy his computer and destroy evidence, would he not have enough time to research and execute some other option?

You said person purchasing the weapon would pay for the cost...

Someone else came up with an idea and charles asked who would pay for it. If that was the way things went, then I think it should be up to the gun purchaser to pay.

[Teddy B 17,252]

The bigger point is that we, as a society, have collectively failed to be responsible. We have allowed this grotesque proliferation of guns to occur by electing spineless cowards to congress and the white house who fail to stand up to the NRA crazies. We all have been irresponsible!

James, a plus 1 from me on your last 3 posts. You've got this thing nailed.

[Harsh_77 718]

Someone else came up with an idea and charles asked who would pay for it. If that was the way things went, then I think it should be up to the gun purchaser to pay.

Yes I know it was not your idea and even to that post I posted doing a 5 or 10 yr background check on the a purchaser is not a feasible solution.

Those kinda background check costs a lot and resource, just imagine how much of FBI resource would be tied up with it.

Charles understand's that and hence he posted who would be paying for such check, its easy to comeup and recommend an idea but is it really feasible is the question.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

are you gonna pay the cost of that investigation?

Nope, because I don't need a weapon that badly, I live on base and when I get out of the service I'll move somewhere, get one weapon for my family's safety and retire in style. I don't need 20 guns because if it gets that bad in this world I wouldn't want to live in it anymore if I have to keep taking lives to survive. Maybe by making it this thorough, people will think twice about buying an entire armory and laying waste to a school.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Su and Marvin

[PMartin37 161]

Restricting the guns might work / might not work, but the bigger problem with the younger generation is they cannot differentiate between reality and the video game.

We have developed this culture where we teach our younger generation they cannot be wrong and everyone is winner and everyone in the class gets a ribbon or award.

Look at the last 2 cases neither of them was the legal owner of the weapon, they stole the weapon. So you restrict weapon these guys with mental issue will find an alternative approach.

Ok, so because they will simply JUST FIND ANOTHER WAY...let's make it easy on them. Why make it difficult if they are just going to do it anyway? Am I reading that solution right?

I have a question ( I dare to hope for a logical answer). If you were being attacked, which method would you choose to increase your survival rate? (regardless of the fact whether someone is mentally impaired or not)

a. being chased down by a car

b. being attacked with a knife

c. being attacked with no weapon- man to man

d. being fired upon by an assault rifle loaded to the max.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Yes I know it was not your idea and even to that post I posted doing a 5 or 10 yr background check on the a purchaser is not a feasible solution.

Those kinda background check costs a lot and resource, just imagine how much of FBI resource would be tied up with it.

Charles understand's that and hence he posted who would be paying for such check, its easy to comeup and recommend an idea but is it really feasible is the question.

And I answered the question. The person purchasing the guns can pay.