• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

12 dead in Virginia Beach mass shooting

Shad

Veteran Member

You still are ignoring mandatory versus choice. Insurance isn't mandatory here. Insurance relies upon good customers to cover bad customers. Making it mandatory forces people to pay for the misdeeds and accidents of another.

You literally linked a guns rights advocate/lobby group....... Canada does not have the same type of self-defense laws as many states in America do. This type of insurance is akin to Christian advocate groups fighting court battles for people in the public sector like schools or bakers. Look at their front page. All negative toward toward gun control.

Home
 
Last edited:

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes! Absolutely!
It would be good if the USA would pick a 'way' and follow it, any way...... and then maybe pick another?
I reckon that would be positive.

I suppose they can pick any number of ways. On the other hand, it's been pointed out that the violent crime rate has actually decreased over the past couple of decades. So, despite all the attention paid to mass shootings in the past few years, the overall all problem has been improving. So, that's a positive, I think.

Ban ALL guns? Who is pushing to do that?
You can own a gun, rifle and even some pistols in the UK.
A Thousand Million pounds compensation from the government?

I was looking at how both sides approach the issue and their reasons for being either in favor of gun control or against it. Some gun control proposals may be stricter than others, although I was only saying "if society bans all guns" - just to cover all range of proposed restrictions on firearms.

I don't know what the UK gun laws have to do with any of this. I know a lot of Brits make suggestions that, if only the US would restrict guns like they do in the UK, it would reduce the number of firearms deaths. However, just because something works in one country, it doesn't automatically mean it would work in another country.

I'll bet that some gun crime victims at this time don't get diddly, and gun injury victims will only get compensation if a Court can find assets belonging to the defendant.

Again, if you look at the reasons people take a pro-gun control vs. anti-gun control position, the main difference between them appears to be perceptions of government's role and ability to enforce the law and maintain civil order in society.

Those who are against gun control seem to believe that it's unrealistic to expect immediate protection from the government against an armed criminal, so it's considered better to allow citizens to carry their own firearms to defend themselves.

Those who are in favor of gun control would argue that there would be a reduced risk of an armed intruder if it was more difficult for such an individual to acquire a firearm in the first place. But there are still situations where an intruder can have a knife or be younger/bigger/stronger than their victims. It still puts an undue reliance on the police authorities to protect the public whenever they're in danger.

So, my proposal would favor gun control, but also challenge the gun control side to "put their money where their mouth is," so to speak. If they truly believe that the government can protect the citizenry, then they should have no problem with a massive payout to victims of violent crime. They have to be willing to give up something in order to get what they want (gun control). If they're so certain that their proposals will work, then, theoretically, there would never be a time when such a payout would be necessary.

You do think up some strange ideas. What a shocker if you ever got big in politics. :D

I like to think outside the box. There are too many people out there with conventional, stick-in-the-mud mindsets.

Honestly, I see a lot of these issues get discussed where both sides just go round and round. Neither side comes up with anything new or any revised proposal or compromise that might appeal to both sides. It's like people stay stuck in their own little boxes and never want to bother to try to think in different ways.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
I'm
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

This is not for what the quote was originally intended, but it works.
I'll avoid folksy platitudes if you will. Deal?
A) All weapons are not efficient and effective means of self defense. Firearms however are. You point a is not very logical.
"self defence" against what? We've been over this argument endlessly. The fact that every other developed nation on the planet manages without such massive gun proliferation proves this is a nonsense. Worried about your safety? Buy a secuirity door and invest i n the social infrastructure to reduce and control crime and get over this ridiculous wild west, every man for himself, fantasy.
B) Let us see if there is a willingness to adopt such an Ammendment. I hope not, but if so then so be it. Do not expect such positions to go unopposed.

No, it is not "demonstrated nonsense." You are merely buying into your special brand of propaganda. Cheers though.
demonstrated in every other developed country on Earth. But shre, if your ego is that fragile you need to play cowboy, at the cost of thousands needlessly killed and injured each year, congratulations on having priorities, I guess.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
You still are ignoring mandatory versus choice. Insurance isn't mandatory here. Insurance relies upon good customers to cover bad customers. Making it mandatory forces people to pay for the misdeeds and accidents of another.

So you don't really understand Insurance, how it protects its customers whilst also protecting 3rd parties. OK.

Just look at how that one organisation supports responsible gun ownership and INSURANCE! ....... in YOUR COUNTRY!


You literally linked a guns rights advocate/lobby group.......
Which proves that I am not biased....... yeah? True?
Literally...... objective. Well that's good, anyhow.
If, by chance, I had picked a 'ban-guns' website you'd be screaming 'agenda!' .......

Canada does not have the same type of self-defense laws as many states in America do.
Please quote from Canadian legislation as compared with a sample State. I don't think you know much about any differences.
Previous discussions with hot 'pro-gun' Americans have shown that their ideas about home security are mostly pathetic, they just think they need a gun within reach.

This type of insurance is akin to Christian advocate groups fighting court battles for people in the public sector like schools or bakers. Look at their front page. All negative toward toward gun control.

What a laugh! How do you manage to link the common sense of 3rd party gun insurance to a religious court battle?
It might have been better if you had linked the total irresponsibility of uninsured gun-nuts to psychiatric research. Honestly.

3rd party all-risks insurance....... and 'sure', folks with a background history of crimes, instabilities, incidents, accidents and stupidity won't be able to afford the premiums. They might just get refused.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I suppose they can pick any number of ways. On the other hand, it's been pointed out that the violent crime rate has actually decreased over the past couple of decades. So, despite all the attention paid to mass shootings in the past few years, the overall all problem has been improving. So, that's a positive, I think.
Don't tell yesterday's hundreds of gun injured and relatives of all the gun killed (just yesterday's) that things are looking up.

I was looking at how both sides approach the issue and their reasons for being either in favor of gun control or against it.
There are hundreds of sides, from total gun nuttery through to total gun-ban extremism.

I don't know what the UK gun laws have to do with any of this.
When folks suggest that the UK is a 'total gun-ban' country, or I think they implied it, I point out the truth, is all.

I know a lot of Brits make suggestions that, if only the US would restrict guns like they do in the UK, it would reduce the number of firearms deaths.
Hang on....... a lot of Americans make those suggestions as well.

Again, if you look at the reasons people take a pro-gun control vs. anti-gun control position, the main difference between them appears to be perceptions of government's role and ability to enforce the law and maintain civil order in society.
I belonged to a UK pistol club in the 70's and a group of members thought that they should be given a special power so that in civil emergency they could take to the streets with their guns..... total absolute nutters, the lot of them! ................... all they could do was shoot holes in targets and they thought that they were James Bond..... Mad! :D

Those who are against gun control seem to believe that it's unrealistic to expect immediate protection from the government against an armed criminal, so it's considered better to allow citizens to carry their own firearms to defend themselves.
Oh please! The very first rule for an untrained, inexperienced victim in a robbery is 'comply with the demands of the robber'. We even train that to security officers and police constables.


Those who are in favor of gun control would argue that there would be a reduced risk of an armed intruder if it was more difficult for such an individual to acquire a firearm in the first place.
..... but you can't see the simple sense in that?

But there are still situations where an intruder can have a knife or be younger/bigger/stronger than their victims. It still puts an undue reliance on the police authorities to protect the public whenever they're in danger.
Where is this incident taking place?

At home? If this incident is happening at home, please tell me how the burglar/robber got in to the property.

So, my proposal would favor gun control, but also challenge the gun control side to "put their money where their mouth is," so to speak. If they truly believe that the government can protect the citizenry, then they should have no problem with a massive payout to victims of violent crime.
Weird idea! OK folks, we're issuing free handguns in this town so that citizens can enforce the law and protect themselves. But all those who refuse the equipment automatically get a billion dollar payout if they get hurt by a criminal. Result...... nobody collected a free gun.

They have to be willing to give up something in order to get what they want (gun control). If they're so certain that their proposals will work, then, theoretically, there would never be a time when such a payout would be necessary.
You obviously don't know much about people.
There would be millions of claims, many of them fraudulent. If this is your best vehicle for showing a need for the 300 million guns-awash in America then think again.

Honestly, I see a lot of these issues get discussed where both sides just go round and round. .
Will be going round in thirty years' time, possibly.
And think of all those gun deaths in that time.

Compulsory all-risks gun insurance.
Criminal Record Checks.
Compulsory gun training courses.
Mandatory gun-use qualifications.
Mandatory Gun-Licences.
A Ban on unlicensed Gun-Fairs.
Gun Amnesties where any gun handed in is destroyed and its owner compensated.
All hunting guns limited to three round magazines.
A Ban on private semi-auto guns other than for competitions.
Everybody has trhe right to own guns, subject to the above conditions.
Every Council to employ Crime Prevention Officers to give free quality advice and initiatives to folks about better home, vehicle, travel safety and security.
....... something like that.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
So you don't really understand Insurance, how it protects its customers whilst also protecting 3rd parties. OK.

Wrong. I use insurance for prescriptions, my vehicle, death and home. I disagree with insurance being mandatory.

Just look at how that one organisation supports responsible gun ownership and INSURANCE! ....... in YOUR COUNTRY!

They are not advocating it be mandatory.



Which proves that I am not biased....... yeah? True?

Literally...... objective. Well that's good, anyhow.
If, by chance, I had picked a 'ban-guns' website you'd be screaming 'agenda!' .......


No. I was suggesting you just random googled it and linked it without much consideration of the page. After all the group does not advocate mandatory insurance which was my point to begin with.


Please quote from Canadian legislation as compared with a sample State. I don't think you know much about any differences.

Section 34.2b "(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:"

"(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;"

Ergo no stand your ground laws nor castle doctrine. Note the difference. In Alabama law reasonable force is determined by the person not the courts after the fact.


Alabama Code Title 13A. Criminal Code § 13A-3-23 | FindLaw
Criminal Code

Previous discussions with hot 'pro-gun' Americans have shown that their ideas about home security are mostly pathetic, they just think they need a gun within reach.

Considering there is no police officer guarding the average citizens doors what do you suggest? Surrendering? Get robs while sitting there like some sheep? Have you ever been a victim of a crime that involves self-defense? A home invasion perhaps? I have.



What a laugh! How do you manage to link the common sense of 3rd party gun insurance to a religious court battle?

I was pointing out it is an advocate group which is also providing services like Christian groups do in the US. Ergo they are providing a service not because they are an insurance company but an advocate group.

It might have been better if you had linked the total irresponsibility of uninsured gun-nuts to psychiatric research. Honestly.

Assertion regarding irresponsible. Do not conflate criminals with anyone that owns a gun.

3rd party all-risks insurance....... and 'sure', folks with a background history of crimes, instabilities, incidents, accidents and stupidity won't be able to afford the premiums. They might just get refused.

Ergo violation of 2A if insurance is mandatory.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Don't tell yesterday's hundreds of gun injured and relatives of all the gun killed (just yesterday's) that things are looking up.

Appeals to emotion aside, the statistics are pretty clear on this point.

There are hundreds of sides, from total gun nuttery through to total gun-ban extremism.


When folks suggest that the UK is a 'total gun-ban' country, or I think they implied it, I point out the truth, is all.

Okay, but my point here is that the US and UK are different countries.

Hang on....... a lot of Americans make those suggestions as well.

That's because they don't want to examine the deeper causes of crime and violence in society. They don't want to look at the motives or consider the reasons why people commit crimes. All they can do is launch into endless emotional tirades about guns. They're a distraction from the real issue and they will continue to be a part of the problem as long as they keep avoiding it.

The problem here is the dog-eat-dog philosophy dominating our culture. We need to find ways to force the powers that be to treat people with greater decency, respect, and dignity as human beings. This way, people will be happier, less angry, and less likely to commit murder.

It's ironic in a way, to see what ideological hoops people will jump through simply to avoid having to actually be nice and respectful towards people. And the thing is, it's an exercise in futility, since gun control proposals routinely come up against powerful lobbies and strong opposition. If people continue to embrace a malignant philosophy, then it's hard to sympathize with them when the consequences of such a philosophy come back to bite them in the backside.

I belonged to a UK pistol club in the 70's and a group of members thought that they should be given a special power so that in civil emergency they could take to the streets with their guns..... total absolute nutters, the lot of them! ................... all they could do was shoot holes in targets and they thought that they were James Bond..... Mad! :D

Well, I guess in the event of a zombie apocalypse, they might be needed.

Oh please! The very first rule for an untrained, inexperienced victim in a robbery is 'comply with the demands of the robber'. We even train that to security officers and police constables.

Some people aren't too keen on giving in to criminals. They think that weakens society and allows crime to have a free hand.

..... but you can't see the simple sense in that?

I don't think it would be as simple as that.

Where is this incident taking place?

At home? If this incident is happening at home, please tell me how the burglar/robber got in to the property.

It's just a hypothetical. But not everyone can secure their properties like Fort Knox.

Weird idea! OK folks, we're issuing free handguns in this town so that citizens can enforce the law and protect themselves. But all those who refuse the equipment automatically get a billion dollar payout if they get hurt by a criminal. Result...... nobody collected a free gun.

I never said anything about issuing free handguns. You're misinterpreting what I said.

You obviously don't know much about people.
There would be millions of claims, many of them fraudulent. If this is your best vehicle for showing a need for the 300 million guns-awash in America then think again.

That's not what I said. It's merely a challenge to those to see if they want to deal with the real causes of crime - or if they simply want to attack symptoms of crime while offering no real solutions whatsoever. If all they can think to do is ban guns (and nothing else), then they are people with no imagination and no real desire to address the problem in earnest.

Will be going round in thirty years' time, possibly.
And think of all those gun deaths in that time.

Compulsory all-risks gun insurance.
Criminal Record Checks.
Compulsory gun training courses.
Mandatory gun-use qualifications.
Mandatory Gun-Licences.
A Ban on unlicensed Gun-Fairs.
Gun Amnesties where any gun handed in is destroyed and its owner compensated.
All hunting guns limited to three round magazines.
A Ban on private semi-auto guns other than for competitions.
Everybody has trhe right to own guns, subject to the above conditions.
Every Council to employ Crime Prevention Officers to give free quality advice and initiatives to folks about better home, vehicle, travel safety and security.
....... something like that.

If your goal is a crime-free society, then it's better to address the root causes than attack symptoms.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
I'm
I'll avoid folksy platitudes if you will. Deal? "self defence" against what?
Don't sad.
We've been over this argument endlessly. The fact that every other developed nation on the planet manages without such massive gun proliferation proves this is a nonsense. Worried about your safety? Buy a secuirity door and invest i n the social infrastructure to reduce and control crime and get over this ridiculous wild west, every man for himself, fantasy.
Sounds to me like you are making a strawman. Stick to what was actually said. Regarding security doors, sure i think a person should be free to own those as well. Not sure what you specifically mean by social infrastructure.
demonstrated in every other developed country on Earth. But shre, if your ego is that fragile you need to play cowboy, at the cost of thousands needlessly killed and injured each year, congratulations on having priorities, I guess.
Again with the strawmen. Let us try to focus on the topic at hand. No need to try attacking me because you are wrong.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
Until you get people from inflaming those that don't have any idea about firearm laws, that outright lie or have a tendency to falsify facts just to attempt to make a point nothing is going to get done.
And in this instance the person is the former President of the United States Barrack Hussein Obama.

"You know, without much, if any, regulation, they can buy it over the Internet, they can buy machine guns.
https://videos.dailymail.co.uk/vide...846731943/640x360_MP4_8289555986846731943.mp4
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
It's so unfortunate that some people love their guns far more than they love the American people. To offer nothing while these mass killings are being repeated is much like burrowing one's head in the sand and hoping that all will change while nothing is being done. If more guns was the answer, then we should be the safest country of the major industrialized powers because we have the most per capita, but we ain't-- far from it.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
It's so unfortunate that some people love their guns far more than they love the American people. To offer nothing while these mass killings are being repeated is much like burrowing one's head in the sand and hoping that all will change while nothing is being done. If more guns was the answer, then we should be the safest country of the major industrialized powers because we have the most per capita, but we ain't-- far from it.
When are you and others of your persuasion going to realize that it is not just firearms fault but in actuality the fault of the individual. Maybe we would be better off looking a why these people do these incidents. And don't say if they didn't have a firearm they wouldn't do it; they may not kill and injure as many if they didn't, but then again who is to say they would not resort to more deadly means of acting out.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
The shooter is also dead. They believe he was a longtime city employee, but no motive has been determined as of yet.
Here is more detailed info:
Virginia Beach Gunman Cited 'Personal Reasons' For Quitting Just Before Mass Shooting

The shooter, DeWayne Craddock, was a 40 year old Civil Engineer for the city. His note only said he was quitting for personal reasons. He was in good standing with his department.

The police should investigate all of the city contractors and his aquaintances. The shooting is mysterious. Possibly someone blackmailed this civil engineer in some way. It looks, to me, like an enemy got some dirt on him that would ruin his reputation. Probably someone wanted to corrupt him.

The courthouse has metal detectors and x-ray equipment, and everyone is required to pass through. I don't know if the employees are.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I suppose they can pick any number of ways. On the other hand, it's been pointed out that the violent crime rate has actually decreased over the past couple of decades. So, despite all the attention paid to mass shootings in the past few years, the overall all problem has been improving. So, that's a positive, I think.



I was looking at how both sides approach the issue and their reasons for being either in favor of gun control or against it. Some gun control proposals may be stricter than others, although I was only saying "if society bans all guns" - just to cover all range of proposed restrictions on firearms.

I don't know what the UK gun laws have to do with any of this. I know a lot of Brits make suggestions that, if only the US would restrict guns like they do in the UK, it would reduce the number of firearms deaths. However, just because something works in one country, it doesn't automatically mean it would work in another country.



Again, if you look at the reasons people take a pro-gun control vs. anti-gun control position, the main difference between them appears to be perceptions of government's role and ability to enforce the law and maintain civil order in society.

Those who are against gun control seem to believe that it's unrealistic to expect immediate protection from the government against an armed criminal, so it's considered better to allow citizens to carry their own firearms to defend themselves.

Those who are in favor of gun control would argue that there would be a reduced risk of an armed intruder if it was more difficult for such an individual to acquire a firearm in the first place. But there are still situations where an intruder can have a knife or be younger/bigger/stronger than their victims. It still puts an undue reliance on the police authorities to protect the public whenever they're in danger.

So, my proposal would favor gun control, but also challenge the gun control side to "put their money where their mouth is," so to speak. If they truly believe that the government can protect the citizenry, then they should have no problem with a massive payout to victims of violent crime. They have to be willing to give up something in order to get what they want (gun control). If they're so certain that their proposals will work, then, theoretically, there would never be a time when such a payout would be necessary.



I like to think outside the box. There are too many people out there with conventional, stick-in-the-mud mindsets.

Honestly, I see a lot of these issues get discussed where both sides just go round and round. Neither side comes up with anything new or any revised proposal or compromise that might appeal to both sides. It's like people stay stuck in their own little boxes and never want to bother to try to think in different ways.

I cannot really believe that a person who wants to
commit mass murder will just give up because they
cannot go to walmart and buy a gun.

I am not going to suggest anything, but!
 

Audie

Veteran Member
The land of the free ...

Who knew Albania was so much more free than the USA,
but, there it is.
frequency_of_mass_shootings_by_countryjpg.jpg
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Appeals to emotion aside, the statistics are pretty clear on this point.

Okay, but my point here is that the US and UK are different countries.

That's because they don't want to examine the deeper causes of crime and violence in society. They don't want to look at the motives or consider the reasons why people commit crimes. All they can do is launch into endless emotional tirades about guns. They're a distraction from the real issue and they will continue to be a part of the problem as long as they keep avoiding it.

The problem here is the dog-eat-dog philosophy dominating our culture. We need to find ways to force the powers that be to treat people with greater decency, respect, and dignity as human beings. This way, people will be happier, less angry, and less likely to commit murder.

It's ironic in a way, to see what ideological hoops people will jump through simply to avoid having to actually be nice and respectful towards people. And the thing is, it's an exercise in futility, since gun control proposals routinely come up against powerful lobbies and strong opposition. If people continue to embrace a malignant philosophy, then it's hard to sympathize with them when the consequences of such a philosophy come back to bite them in the backside.

Well, I guess in the event of a zombie apocalypse, they might be needed.

Some people aren't too keen on giving in to criminals. They think that weakens society and allows crime to have a free hand.

I don't think it would be as simple as that.

It's just a hypothetical. But not everyone can secure their properties like Fort Knox.

I never said anything about issuing free handguns. You're misinterpreting what I said.

That's not what I said. It's merely a challenge to those to see if they want to deal with the real causes of crime - or if they simply want to attack symptoms of crime while offering no real solutions whatsoever. If all they can think to do is ban guns (and nothing else), then they are people with no imagination and no real desire to address the problem in earnest.

If your goal is a crime-free society, then it's better to address the root causes than attack symptoms.


Thanks for that. I can see that you are a moderate in as much as you can discuss how 'things' might get better in to the future.

Your point about securing homes 'like Fort Knox' interested me. A very high % of burglaries in the UK occur in the mid-afternoon, often in to unlocked properties, but of course most folks imagine burglaries at dead of night. Homes here have can be fitted with UPVC and composite doors and are very very hard to bash in; it's fun to watch cop programs where they can't get in to a property to search it, not even with battering rams, in fact now a new tool is used, a miniature chain saw mounted on an extension arm to cut out the middle of the door. Windows tend to be double or triple glazed and although some older windows can be deglazed this takes time. There has to be a bloody good reason for getting in to a home these days, and that is sometimes to get hold of high-performance car keys.
Basically, just fitting decent windows and doors can secure a home quite well. And then there's a list of low cost intruder deterrents which can put off intrusions. Obviously if you are a work-at-home jeweler then you're going to need some extra protection.

But the idea of doing little or nothing to secure a home, and then feeling the need to go to sleep with a pistol seems slightly mad to many folks here.

Travelling with high value property needs training, and our Cash-and-Value-in-Transit (CVIT) teams are taught to chuck down the carrying case and step back if they are confronted in a robbery. You mention that this is not so good, but the cost of compensation plus supporting a CVIT guard's family plus seeing the children through to further education is going to exceed whatever was being carried by many many times. It's simple mathematics.

There have been self defence killings here, about ten in maybe thirty years, but not many. But if there were 65 million guns here you might imagine what a difference that could make. There are 65 million people here. You have about 300 million guns in the US, I believe.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
This guy was probably pressured. He was a Civil Engineer for the city. I suspect corruption. This is Va Beach, and the City Council has been run for decades by those who own the tourist traps. They get considerations for their businesses. Its a great city, has a great police force, nice people. I just don't think a Civil Engineer suddenly goes on a nutty shooting spree in the courthouse for no good reason or for 'Personal reasons'.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Don't sad.

Sounds to me like you are making a strawman. Stick to what was actually said. Regarding security doors, sure i think a person should be free to own those as well. Not sure what you specifically mean by social infrastructure.

Again with the strawmen. Let us try to focus on the topic at hand. No need to try attacking me because you are wrong.
Sure. "Every other developed nation ion the planet" is a strawman.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
When are you and others of your persuasion going to realize that it is not just firearms fault but in actuality the fault of the individual. Maybe we would be better off looking a why these people do these incidents. And don't say if they didn't have a firearm they wouldn't do it; they may not kill and injure as many if they didn't, but then again who is to say they would not resort to more deadly means of acting out.
The above is complete nonsense. Every country has its fair share of those that are mentally ill, and yet comparative homicide rates are MUCH higher here in the States than in any other industrialized country.

Secondly, for one to assume that all or even most of these homicides are caused by mentally ill patients goes against the fact that most of them do not have a record of such, plus there's the fact that most of us at one time or another will suffer at least some depression in our lives, plus also there's the simple fact that sometimes even the best of people can loose their tempers. All countries have such conditions, but why is the American rate so much higher than the other industrialized countries?

We have an estimated 300,000,000 guns in circulation in the U.S., which is almost 1 gun per man, woman, and child, so can you explain what all these guns in circulation is not making us a safer country as compared to Canada, Australia, Japan, and countries in western Europe?

At this point, common sense should tell you that you cannot be right on this, but it's clear that your love of your guns is far more important than common sense and people's lives. And polls now show that most Americans do not agree with you on this, thus believing that there are common sense measures that should be taken to reduce the carnage of not only mass murders but also day to day murders as well.

nuf sed
 
Top