by Grand Forks Herald
August 11, 2012 at 3:34 pm in Grand Forks Herald
Mass shootings have rattled nerves and renewed calls for stricter gun laws. Doctors are thinking bigger. Continue Reading
Tags: guns, Health, public health, updates 81 Comments »
Can’t wait for the first “support group”. Hi, I’m Joe Blow and I killed 48 people because I have a disease.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 35 10
Oh ya, just leave it in the hands of the government public health, that will surely fix things. How about quit protecting the mentally ill, there is another whole layer of special protections on their medical record and if you view them you had better be able to justify it. No wonder they can buy guns.
Hot debate. What do you think? 27 16
Doctors and the CDC should stick to medicine, and leave social issues to others. I especially object to my tax dollars going to organizations with the political objective of disarming the American public.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 40 18
” Doctors are thinking bigger.” No doctors are thinking that guns make the decisions and act on their own so ban them. It is not the guns that are the problem it is the culture of violence and desenseitization that are the problem. Who is responsible for this? the entertainment industry. Movies, news programs and video game live off entertainment of violence. This is the core source of violence in our society. People are simply no longer horrified by it… they crave it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 41 10
I agree with you Glen, and that doesn’t happen very often, but I do think that what this was about was trying to figure out how to recognize when a person has the type of borderline personality that expresses anger and frustration by acting out in this manner. Could there be a way of determining using some kind of indicator that a violent response is iminent? I don’t think that simply taking away guns from people is going to do any thing to change what’s going on. But at least the medical profession is asking if there is something they may be missing in their psychological evaluations. That’s worth pursuing.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 24 6
I worked in a Level 1 psych center for several years (the last stop before the state hospital). The people you are describing (borderline personality, antisocial personality, etc) are a tough nut to crack. Medicine has absolutely NOTHING to offer. We do not have one effective treatment.
In fact, ask any psychiatrist and they will confirm that these people actually do better in the criminal justice system than the healthcare system. Immediate and consistent consequences for their behavior. They flourish in that environment. And since many are above average intelligence, they could easily find the cure for cancer: if we kept them in jail while they were doing it.
The mass shooters, like the one in CO and the one who shot Congresswoman Giffords are not part of this group. Both of these guys were schizophrenic, and unusual at that, since most schizophrenics are non violent.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 22 5
Never, ever, ever do the unthinkable…And try to bring logic into the discussion about guns…..That’s dangerous as hell….Because it just might make people think with their heads rather than their fears…
Hot debate. What do you think? 23 26
For all the ideological nonsense spouted by the gun lobby there is a lot of truth in their mantra “guns don’t kill people, people do!” Logic? Contrast the USA statistics with Switzerland where automatic military weapons are in most houses — but gun crime is miniscule compared to the USA.
The problem is with the nature of our society –thus, a social science-based public health approach is logical and warranted.
Hot debate. What do you think? 22 11
I do not have a problem with gun ownership. I don’t even have a problem with you owning a fully automatic M-16 or AK-47. After 30 years as an Emergency Nurse and Paramedic I have learned that it is not how many bullets are fired that matter, but how many actually hit you; and where.
I do have a problem with no training. You have to prove a baseline of competence to drive a car, but if you are over 21, are not legally crazy (which is much different than mentally ill under medical terms), and are not a convicted felon; you do not have to prove you know how to handle a weapon.
In addition to the routine background checks, I think all gun owners should have to demonstrate how to safe, clean, and safely fire the weapon they are purchasing. A simple test of the applicable state gun laws would also be appropriate (In AZ anyone can carry concealed, but where they can carry is very tightly restricted).
As for the disease bit. NOT. Remember I am a rebel, I do not think addiction is a disease process but a behavioral choice. Being an addict leads to some definite health problems, but the addiction itself does not qualify as a disease.
This is the same. In the ER or on the helicopter we say “trauma is a lifestyle” because of how many repeat offenders we see (you would be amazed how many gang bangers carry the scars from their previous shooting/stabbing and how many head injured motorcyclists have previous admissions for traumatic brain injuries).
Violence is a lifestyle, not a disease process.
Domestic violence is a lifestyle and criminal problem, not a disease process.
In the 60s we were taught everyone was born equal and it is their surroundings which make someone good and bad. In the 21 century we now know (DNA) that is not the case. Some people really are just born bad and cannot be “cured” (pediophiles top the list).
That does not make them sick or worthy of the disease label, it just makes them bad.
Hot debate. What do you think? 26 14
Excellent analysis FN.
Like or Dislike: 14 9
First off…I can’t figure how you weren’t jammed with dislikes for suggesting a logical approach to this (They must be basking in the Eddie Munster VP dream)
Isn’t this a primary problem with the current NRA compared to the original NRA? The very group who should be not only supporting all of this but advocating it has been taken over by major arms dealers and pretty much opposes any thing that might the ease to acquire whatever you want with virtually no restrictions regardless who the hell you are or how unqualified you might be?
Hot debate. What do you think? 11 20
Actually, I do have a problem with you owning an AK-47 or an M-16.
Like or Dislike: 8 14
Central to the problem is the mindset inculcated in med schools, whereby all problems have the possibility of being cured through science. This is a throwback to the scientific positivism of Compte and others during the second part of the 19th century. Just give researchers time and all will be fine. It worked for the major maladies of the millenia for the most part. Problem is, psychiatry was accepted as a science also, so mental problems fell into the same pot as physical problems.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 23 5
Gene, that’s because to be a psychiatrist you have to receive a medical degree because mental problems may have an organic origin.
Like or Dislike: 9 8
I am well aware of the organic origins of OCD and the like: brain chemistry. But are the psychiatrists discovering this or just prescribing the pills?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 16 1
Research psychiatry makes discoveries in medicine because they are medical researchers.
Like or Dislike: 2 8
The Wise Man once said:
Every time some nutjob goes crazy and shoots a bunch of people, a whole herd of nutjobs try to take the guns or ammunition away from the people who DIDN’T do it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 34 9
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Well you might call yourself wise for saying it……..
So by this gem of logic…just because some people can’t seem to drink alcohol and drive then it’s wrong to try to control everyone from doing the same?
Or the same could be said about airport security. Have you ever brought weapons on board or tried to do harm in flight? No? Then what right do they have to check you out for something you’ve never done or have ever even been suspected of doing?
Most don’t want to take it away anyway….We want some logical solutions to an increasing problem…..Keep your gun (I’m assuming you are indeed stable), but let’s try to make it difficult for the real nut jobs to do a lot of damage…..Hopefully before it might effect someone you care about.
This issue is much like the stop light placement issue quite often. Too often a dangerous intersection gets debated for a long time until some horrible accident happensn where a family or some local celebrities end up dead….Then it finally goes through…..
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 14 25
“Well you might call yourself wise for saying it……..”
“I” am not The Wise Man; although I did paraphrase him You’d be looking for William S. Burroughs.
Gun ownership is still (mostly) legal. Until illegal acts are proven against that person, his/her FREEDOM SHOULD NOT BE INTERFERED WITH. The primary problem with Society is that crybabies and Safety NA ZIs have used the Constitution for toilet paper; reducing freedom because they refuse to allow the Citizens to make decisions for themselves–they might make a decision that went against the Crybaby’s personal beliefs.
Intrusive government has NEVER been the answer to society’s problems. Never in the history of the world has intrusive government provided relief from problems–in fact just exactly the opposite. As government becomes more intrusive, society suffers even more.
A free person can choose to act safely. A person made “safe” by government fiat can never be free. FREEDOM is more important than SAFETY.
Like or Dislike: 19 8
Damn Shurkey……I really try to give you the benifit of doubt that you’re smarter than your posts….But then you post such foolish blather and it get’s really hard to think you are smarter…
Hot debate. What do you think? 13 20
You lack authority in that regard.
Like or Dislike: 9 5
Aye laddie buck….But let’s not be too loud or before long they just might come along and tell us all that we need “Proper Authority” to post whatever heap of shat we want to deliver….And then where would you be eh?
Like or Dislike: 6 9
You have much authority in the “heap” department.
Like or Dislike: 8 7
Aye…but then it takes a heap to match a heap….so there we go…stuck in the eternal round about of this small unimportant little passion play eh?
Like or Dislike: 7 10
Oh bye the bye….I’ve been listening to a book while going down the road that takes place in Belfast and read by an Irish reader….I think it opened up me roots and suddenly I’m typing with a Celtic flavor
Like or Dislike: 7 9
Well, I can tell you that I’ve been on the tundra a few times and have seen many a tundra heap and, yup, that’s a tundra heap. Nope, I don’t believe it’s Celtic flavor.
It’s often difficult for such an itsy bitsy brain to have accurate height and depth perception….So your confusion is completly understandable….
The size of the heap you produce isn’t the issue because it’s still just a heap.
Like or Dislike: 6 6
Have to admit….For a far right winger…You’re not bad at the game. Most usually get frustrated and eventually tell me go to hell or more likely fornicate in what’s biologically impossible manner……I’m sure we’ll have more chances down the road……Later
Like or Dislike: 5 5
So true…but as you point out…the heap of the Tundrabeast is one upon the tundra….So then the heap of the brain is? In the brain? I’ll accept that
Like or Dislike: 4 5
The heap of the Tundrabeast is on the keyboard and manifested upon the screen.
Like or Dislike: 4 2
The real violence committed by Americans using firearms is happening in third world nations, everyday. You cannot say “we” have a problem here while we actively commit genocide in other lands. Americans vicarious attitude about violence is a problem, yet the apathy surrounding who commits the most violence is astounding. Gun control? How about military control…..
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 6 23
I think you’re mistaking not doing much to help those who are under attack with doing actual genocide. Even in these days of super spin doctoring I don’t think the US could get by with genocide like it did with native tribes in this country at one time
Hot debate. What do you think? 11 19
Where are the weapons coming from where genocide is happening? seems to me the US & I would guess that is what devilschild refers to.
Like or Dislike: 3 6
They can impose any law against firearms or ammo they would like. The only people this law would pertain too is the average joe. If a person wants to do harm with a firearm bad enough, they will find a way. See the drug dealers on the corner? No? Drugs are still around. Like FN’s analysis’. It’s all about supply and demand. All they need to do is find a supplier.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 19 4
Well Clint…You might have a point there….From that logic then lets stop all efforts to curtail the flow of drugs because supply and demand is such that we virtually are throwing money down a deep dark hole…..So by decriminalizing drugs and not trying to do anything to slow the flow…..will that make the problem better….or much worse?
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 7 22
Criminalizing drugs–the entire “War on Drugs” is an abysmal failure that’s done little to prevent addiction, but has created a whole host of unintended consequences up to and including PROMOTING ORGANIZED CRIME in such amounts and with such ferocity that the governments of various countries are staggering under the corruption brought about by the criminals who own the politicians.
We’d be BETTER OFF to provide pharmaceutical-grade drugs without a prescription than to have created the cartels in Central/South America that promote crime and violence there…AND HERE.
Sell high-grade meth by the half-pound, over-the-counter…and I bet the “meth problem” solves itself in six months. Some folks won’t be happy with the inevitable outcome, but the current situation is actually worse.
Like or Dislike: 13 2
Tundra. Drugs are illegal. Guns are not. It was an analogy showing that people will find ways around the law. Granted, a new law could make it more difficult, if not nearly impossible, for anyone to own certain guns or magazines. But it won’t stop all. Fyi, You already know the answer to your question.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 24 2
The comparison holds…I did say if you decriminalized drugs then would you have the same kind of control on them as there is with laws trying to control them now? You brought up the comparison so don’t try to change it to not a valid one after I reversed the comparison to attempt to show a huge chink in your logic
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 6 20
One of best but dumbest post I read yesterday in regards to the Texas shootings — How do criminals legally buy these guns. —– To that clueless person and many others, CRIMINALS don’t LEGALLY buy guns, they steal them or get them from the black market. All the gun laws in the world will not disarm criminals. Is it that hard to grasp? We have great gun laws in the U.S.A., we just have liberals protecting the very subset of people that are committing most of these mass shootings by not allowing access to mental records. Get a license plate for DUI, so why not a license plate for the mentally ill. By the way, gun and violent crime has been decreasing since 2005.
Like or Dislike: 17 5
Apparently you missed all the “Print” on the guy who opened up in the theater….He bought in stores and on line……There’s also many cases of even teens purchasing at gun shows and flea markets…..So I know you want to believe that all the bad guns are picked up through bad acts…but it just isn’t so…
Like or Dislike: 8 16
The wing nut that shot Congresswoman Giffords & killed all of those other people purchased all his weapons legally. The problem is not the gun, it is the person.
Like or Dislike: 14 1
Exactly….But apparently it’s totally taboo to even consider exploring ways to make it more difficult for the people nobody should want to have a gun to be able to get one legally. Kind of makes me wonder if there’s that many gun lovers on here who actually fear they might not qualify……Now there’s a scary thought….Several gun owners already questioning their own psychological health level in regards to carrying a gun…..If they have inner doubts themselves……Wow…..
Like or Dislike: 5 12
Shooting is a sport for my family. Just like archery would be for someone else. We are not paranoid. We are outdoorsmen. Some people collect coins. We collect firearms.
Like or Dislike: 7 0
Some guns are illegal just as some drugs are legal.
Like or Dislike: 4 6
Give more people guns. Give them out at grocery checkout. Let these jokers who feel the need to own one kickstart the genocide. I’m all for it. Human life has absolutely zero worth and this proves it beyond any shadow of a doubt. Human life could be so much more significant but the unthinking majority choose to wallow in ignorance. Try having some vision instead of being merely reactionary. Whole new worlds will open up to your consciousness.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 3 24
I think it is Dead Inside Head.
Like or Dislike: 15 3
Ah! A man who subscribes to the Archie Bunker school of problem solving……
Like or Dislike: 10 9
27 people killed by a bomb in Afghanistan yesterday. How is their unarmed citizenry fairing!
Like or Dislike: 16 5
Wow! The education syste has really gone to shat if thats supposed to be serious……..Naw….That has to be a joke…It’s just too damn dumb to be otherwise…
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 8 19
What are you smoking Tundrabeast? Of course it is serious. Look at the countries where the people have no means of self-protection, bombs killing 3, 12, 40, or 100 or more people at a time. Does that not upset you? I suppose just because it is over there so no worries here. Unless Hillary, Barak & Eric get their dream come true.
Like or Dislike: 17 6
Hmmmmmmm! What could possibly be different about Afghanistan from most places in the world right now? Man that’s a tough one…..I remember something about it being an ACTIVE WAR ZONE still, but that can’t be it can it? Hard to figure why people are getting blown up over there still…..I guess you got me on that one….
Like or Dislike: 8 15
DuggR, Their citizenry, the Taliban is armed.
Like or Dislike: 2 10
Ok!!!!! Sorry to some of you guys for getting a bit snarky here, but every time this comes up we go back and forth over territory that we really don’t need to because it’s eally not about taking away guns from people, but trying to find ways to make it more difficult for the crazies to have easy access to them. I mean if you have families then you should have the commone sense to have gun safes and/or gun locks right? So if that common sense approach seems logical to you then shouldn’t there at least be some logical brain storming to try to make it more difficult for the psychologically disturbed to have too easy access while still allowing responsible gun owners or buyers to have and buy their guns?
Without all the damn whizzing contests on here there must be some way we can discuss this logically without people getting their shorts in a bunch…….And once again I apologize to those for some of my rude comments……Well….in this article, and up to now……Who knows if I’ll get my sorts in a bunch when I check in later again….I’ll try not to, but some of you are real good button pushers…
Like or Dislike: 12 10
You are close to the answer Tundra. It is the same answer that works with terrorism. The problem is not with the implement, but with the person. When people commit crimes, they are not a medical problem, but a criminal justice problem. That is how you address it.
Terrorists are not a problem a modern army is equipped to deal with (10 years, 2 full scale wars, and a net gain of zero. The Taliban will be back in power 6 mo after we leave and Iraq will simply be a larger version of Somalia — albeit with a better equipped army).
The only nation to ever confront, and win an organized terrorist campaign was Britain. They did not do it with overwhelming technological military might; they quietly investigated (gum shoe police work) then executed the perpetrators.
On a smaller scale Western Europe did the same thing during the 1970s. They quietly investigated then killed those who committed the crime.
They DID NOT beat their chest, declare their exceptionalism, and send in the calvary.
As a final example take Israel. When it turned the Mossad loose people died and bombs quit exploding. When they sent the army in, they lost every time.
If you are a US citizen, you get your day in court (otherwise our whole system is a sham). If you are not, and you disappear one night, I will buy a box of Kleenex for your family.
If you commit gun violence, I do not take away everyone’s gun, I introduce you to bubba and tell him he has a new orafice to explore. There will be lots of room because we will have decriminalized marijuana so half the jail cells will be empty.
Like or Dislike: 15 2
Tundra, sorry to rehash this for you. These are my first posts on this topic I believe. I didn’t mean to offend you if I did. I was throwing my 2 cents in. I don’t remember how long ago, the late 80′s perhaps? They outlawed fully automatic weapons. It’s a start.
Like or Dislike: 3 10
My understanding is that they did, but then they let it run out and were able to sell the same weapons that were supposed to be non auto, but not to difficult to switch over…..Ok….I admit I don’t know the details so I might be wrong in some of it….But I have little doubt we’ll get the correction on here quite soon if I am….
Like or Dislike: 6 11
I think I remember that was actually inacted in the 90′s after the Colimbine shootings, but was allowed to expire some years later…
“Enacted” Clicked “Send” too soon again
Like or Dislike: 3 8
Really? You disliked my correction of a mispelled word enough to make a vote on it? Really??????? That just must be some of that “Spreading the love huh?” Or maybe just a bunch of foolishness….
Like or Dislike: 1 1
In a free society you will never be 100% safe. That is simply the cost of doing business. There is no way around it.
There was very little gun violence in the former Soviet Union. In this regard the streets were extraordinarily safe. The trade off was you lived a subsistence existence in a totalitarian society.
As a kid my dad was stationed in Spain under Franco. Same deal. It was one of the safest places on the planet. Those guys with the funny hats – La Guardia Civil – don’t mess with them. If they don’t shoot you outright – happened to more than one GI while we were there – your whole family might disappear.
It is simply a matter of choosing how/where you want to live.
I personally think there’s just way too many people with a huge fear complex based much the same way a hypochondriac bases fear of deseases….By just hearing about them. I go to truely dangerous and scary places, but I also keep aware at all times and basically minimize chances. I’m guessing at least up in the Red River Valley the amount of actual chances that the majority of the peopole have of needing a gun to protect themselves is so low it probably wouldn’t even get into the double digits. Sure crap can happen aywhere…Like a show hall in Aurora, but the odds are so high that it would seem to make far better sense to try to make it more difficult for the disturbed to have easy access than to arm everyone and have one shoot out turn into many.
Like or Dislike: 6 10
The murder rate in the ghetto is very high to the extent people usually don’t go there unless they live or work there. If the poverty didn’t exist in the ghetto & there was a future for young black males the murder rate would be as low as any other place in a city.
If guns weren’t mass produced in the US as to make them as available as candy to children with no future we would eliminate the gun deaths that happen between children.
Therefore gun violence is the result of a diseased society where 5% control 60% of the wealth & we have 1 million black men in prison as a result of poverty. That is a diseased culture any way you cut it. When “radical individualism”.i.e., Randian libertarianism, is the way a society runs itself you have disease. When FN’s worldview of “the price of a free society is the acceptance of the lack of safety” you have “dis- ease” & no one can be “at- ease”.
Like or Dislike: 3 11
BTW, I worked in the Mpls. ghetto for 5 yrs. & lost 8 of my students to gang violence in that time.
Like or Dislike: 2 11
They take the easy way out Spearman. Just like the people that come online, slam us, and leave without adding a word to the conversation.
Like or Dislike: 6 5
“If guns weren’t mass produced in the US as to make them as available as candy to children with no future we would eliminate the gun deaths that happen between children. ”
Companies mass-produce keyboards and pencils, too. Can I blame those mass-produced products for my spelling mistakes?
“BTW, I worked in the Mpls. ghetto for 5 yrs. & lost 8 of my students to gang violence in that time.”
What were the circumstances? Were they IN a gang, or were they simply killed BY the gang? Were they trying to buy drugs from the gang, and “forgot” to bring money? NOT ENOUGH INFO to form an opinion.
Like or Dislike: 6 3
Schurkey, I’d rather be attacked by a keyboard or a pencil than a gun. Your point about gang membership or not shows your political persuasion as ultraconservative. To blame kids for their own death because our society can’t get over its racism is sad.
Like or Dislike: 0 8
Where did Schurkey reference race? Why do those on the left assume everything is about racism unless their end game would be to promote racism? I haven’t seen anyone here mention a race or racism other than spearman. Someone who would use a gun in perpetraing a crime already has a complete disregard for the law so how would restricting a law abiding citizens rights protect him from one who doesn’t care about common decency and the law?
Because murder in the ghetto is by definition about racism.
Like or Dislike: 0 5
That is ridiculous. A high percentage of murders in the ghetto’s are black people killed by black people.
Like or Dislike: 4 1
Like or Dislike: 2 0
How is Black on Black violence not a result of racism. That shows how little you know about the socioeconomic origins of racism. I think that clearly makes you a racist.
Like or Dislike: 0 2
Spearman: that is the biggest bunch of hogwash I have ever read, and I would venture I have had a lot more sociology than you. Besides, someone tried that tired, late 60s theory out on the FS boards and was predictably, and quite appropriately, beat like a red haired step child.
Lets keep the conversation in touch with reality. We have all the fantasy we can tolerate on the ACS and political threads.
Like or Dislike: 2 1
Libertarians are racist by definition. How could it be otherwise if “radical individualism” is the basis of Libertarianisn. How much sociology do you claim to have studied FN?
Recently I read about an off duty NY cop who got some flack for writing a letter to the editor of some paper in Calgory about how he felt naked not being able to carry in Canada. He cited a case where he and his wife were taking a walk and some young guy walking their way asked, “Have you been to the Stampede yet? This he took as some confrontation and continued to move along being wary of someone he didn’t know suddenly trying to say something to him. then the person apparently thought the guy didn’t understand him so he asked he again……So then the off duty cop said something like, “I don’t kow who you are, but we’re just moving on here and have no desire to answer any of your enquiries.”
Ok…I know a lot of people from NY are freaked by the kind of openess you might encounter here in the midwest of America and Canada, but this guy with a gun is really pretty scary. How many of us would have just seen this as what we do around here all the time…Just chatting it up with sombody you meet regarding something going on? I mean you could be cautious without having to reach into you holster for “Sweetie” whenever some stranger might say something to you. Especially in the midwest where talking to strangers is fairly common place, “Would you look at those prices?” “Ya…I was at the other store a couple days ago and it was much cheaper there.” “Did they have a big selection?” and on and on…..We do it all the time…Start talking to each other like old friends….Imagine getting shot because that freaks someone out……..
You have to be a resident of Canada for 6 months before you can apply for a concealed carry permit. You can take firearms into Canada but you need to fill out a Non-Resident Firearms Declaration in triplicate, leaving it unsigned until you get to the border. There is a maximum of three weapons allowed, anymore and you will need to fill out a continuation form. Once approved the declaration is valid for 60 days. You can renew it but you need to do so before it expires. The fee is $25 for the declaration. This applies to rifles and shotguns. Handguns with at least 4-inch barrels are considered restricted and are allowed in Canada but you need to fill out an application for an Authorization to Transport Restricted Firearms. This costs $50. Handguns with barrels shorter than 4-inches, fully automatic, converted automatics, and assault-type weapons are not allowed in Canada. In addition certain knives are not allowed as well. Oh yeah…heads up… firearms seized at the border are never returned.
Like or Dislike: 8 0
I’m not sure ou got my point that he was an off duty NY Cop who was just up for a visit, and from all indications…not a lengthy enough stay to make it worthwhile to apply. I just got a kick out of his actually claiming he felt “Naked” without his gun…….Just like something from the Naked Gun movie series…
Like or Dislike: 0 1
I got your point. I found the topic interesting Tundra, that’s all.
Like or Dislike: 1 0
As far as women go….They can be armed to the teeth because even though I’ve known some really tough women along the way they’re generally the exception instead of the rule so if they need guns for protection…Then so be it……
As for men…..Well…How about showing some real nads and allow men to only have the equlivant of what was available in the 1700′s when all this right to bear arms came about. Men can have single or double shot weapons, swords, knives, axes, clubs and bows….and can carry such weapons anywhere and in the open. I wonder how many of the gun lovers would be willing to learn how to use weapons that required real skill and up close combat? Or would there suddenly be a push to not allow people to run around in public with such weapons? I mean when it comes to guns….Anyone can kill with a gun…Little kids have proven that far too many times…..But blades, arrows, and single shot weapons for your only back up….Then you have to be more than tough talking….You actually have to be tough….And generally your best bet in finding those guys are either in the military…or in prison….
Of course the gun lobby responds with ” but the criminals will have a gun”. At any rate you don’t have as much gun violence where resources are well distributed. The gun violence the Communist govts. engage in against their own people is against the right wing forces that want to have a capitalist economy to serve an elite. Just as we had to put down a minority in our own civil war when Southerners wanted an ultra fascist capitalist economy based on slavery.
Like or Dislike: 1 2
Click here to cancel reply.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
To start connecting please log in first.
Topics is proudly provided by the Forum Communications Company