School Shooting in Parkland, Florida

riffmongous

muppetshow1451 wrote: »

Somehow Switzerland doesnt fit in with that.

Switzerland is a unique case though, as the military service also helps with the identification of people who might have mental issues so these people are not going to be allowed to possess weapons

riffmongous

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The Boomtown Rats had a Number 1 hit back in 1979 about a School Shooting with I don't like Mondays.

And he can see no reasons 'cause there are no reasons
What reason do you need to die, die

40 years later and what's changed ?

Wow I never paid attention to the lyrics before, had no idea about this

BattleCorp

Christy42 wrote: »

So then why did Trump reverse Obama's legislation? Why is he letting people he feels are dangerous run around with guns? Why is Trump (or the Republicans) not promising legislation with regards to this?

People are disagreeing on what the fundamental cause is but it feels like only one side has attempted to fix the issue. All I have seen from Republicans is just repeated (successful) attempts to ignore these attacks.

Oh and other countries have mental health issues as well so surely by your logic it is not a mental health issue as they don't have the problems the US has?

I've no idea why the legislation was changed. It makes no sense to me to allow mentally ill people access to guns.

That said, I'm not in favour of a gun ban. I own 7 guns legally (target shooting) and am a law abiding citizen. I'd be well p1ssed off if I had to give up my guns seeing as I don't do anything wrong with them.

BattleCorp

BattleCorp wrote: »

I've no idea why the legislation was changed. It makes no sense to me to allow mentally ill people access to guns.

That said, I'm not in favour of a gun ban. I own 7 guns legally (target shooting) and am a law abiding citizen. I'd be well p1ssed off if I had to give up my guns seeing as I don't do anything wrong with them.

But IF it saved school kids from getting shot, would you give them up?

I’m just keeping it plain and simple for now. If giving up guns led to no more deaths, would you?

BattleCorp

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

But IF it saved school kids from getting shot, would you give them up?

I’m just keeping it plain and simple for now. If giving up guns led to no more deaths, would you?

It's not as simple as you are portraying it.

My guns aren't a danger to kids in school, or anybody else because I'm not mental and I use them legally for target shooting so no lives would be saved by me giving up my guns. Honest answer, no, I wouldn't give up my guns as no lives would be saved.

Chrongen

People yammer on about the 2nd Amendment, well I'm going to give a very brief educational lesson about the 2nd Amendment. The wording is thus:

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So if I might be so bold as to translate that into language for the mentally challenged or those who just can't get their heads out of their rectums, no other of the first 10 Amendments has an introductory explanatory qualifier. To clarify the 2nd Amendment, it reads as such:

NOBODY HAS A LEGAL RIGHT TO OWN A GUN IN THE COUNTRY UNLESS THEY CAN SHOW THAT THEIR OWNERSHIP OF SUCH A WEAPON SERVES THE SECURITY OF THE U.S. FREE STATE,

and,

SUCH OWNERSHIP MUST BE INTEGRATED INTO A WELL-REGULATED OFFICIAL ORGANIZATION.

Pretty simple once it's spelt out, no? So if you are a demonstrably sane person, and can show that your gun ownership will help protect state security, and you are a member of a sanctioned, well-regulated official organization with real social accountability, then the Second Amendment does indicate you have a legal right to own a gun.

Otherwise, FORGET IT. There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL REASON to believe you have the right to keep and bear arms.

Christy42

BattleCorp wrote: »

It's not as simple as you are portraying it.

My guns aren't a danger to kids in school, or anybody else because I'm not mental and I use them legally for target shooting so no lives would be saved by me giving up my guns. Honest answer, no, I wouldn't give up my guns as no lives would be saved.

No but it can be tough to tell whose guns will be a danger.

Having said that I can't think of too many countries were guns are entirely banned. They just have different requirements to get a licence so it seems likely many would keep their guns. Especially those with plenty of reason to have them such as competing in target shooting.

BattleCorp

Chrongen wrote: »

People yammer on about the 2nd Amendment, well I'm going to give a very brief educational lesson about the 2nd Amendment. The wording is thus:

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So if I might be so bold as to translate that into language for the mentally challenged or those who just can't get their heads out of their rectums, no other of the first 10 Amendments has an introductory explanatory qualifier. To clarify the 2nd Amendment, it reads as such:

NOBODY HAS A LEGAL RIGHT TO OWN A GUN IN THE COUNTRY UNLESS THEY CAN SHOW THAT THEIR OWNERSHIP OF SUCH A WEAPON SERVES THE SECURITY OF THE U.S. FREE STATE,

and,

SUCH OWNERSHIP MUST BE INTEGRATED INTO A WELL-REGULATED OFFICIAL ORGANIZATION.

Pretty simple once it's spelt out, no? So if you are a demonstrably sane person, and can show that your gun ownership will help protect state security, and you are a member of a sanctioned, well-regulated official organization with real social accountability, then the Second Amendment does indicate you have a legal right to own a gun.

Otherwise, FORGET IT. There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL REASON to believe you have the right to keep and bear arms.

If your interpretation was correct, do you not think all the eminent legal eagles in America would have twigged your point already?

BowSideChamp

Chrongen wrote: »

People yammer on about the 2nd Amendment, well I'm going to give a very brief educational lesson about the 2nd Amendment. The wording is thus:

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Eh you left out the most important words from the quote!!

The 2nd amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. Rights belonging to the people, not state institutions.

Hitman3000

BowSideChamp wrote:

The 2nd amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. Rights belonging to the people, not state institutions.

Got to keep murdering kids cause we' s got the right to guns.

JenovaProject

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Got to keep murdering kids cause we' s got the right to guns.

All the gun holders???

Hitman3000

JenovaProject wrote:

All the gun holders???

Whatever, Sandy hook proved no one over there gives a fcuk. Kids are expendable the right to bear arms is beyond reproach. Wonder did the founding fathers envisage the b.s. that pro gun nuts cling too?

JenovaProject

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Whatever, Sandy hook proved no one over there gives a fcuk. Kids are expendable the right to bear arms is beyond reproach. Wonder did the founding fathers envisage the b.s. that pro gun nuts cling too?

Ah your just losing your reason now and becoming too emotional.

Hitman3000

Not at all I live somewhere where the right to bear arms and murder children is not sacrosanct.

JenovaProject

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Not at all I leave somewhere where the right to bear arms and murder children is not sacrosanct.

Not allowed murder children in the US of A last time I checked.

Hitman3000

JenovaProject wrote:

Not allowed murder children in the US of A last time I checked.

Guess the Cruz lad didn't get the memo

JenovaProject

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Guess the Cruz lad didn't get the memo

And a few others....shame the Americans wouldnt just let him go out and get pissed instead...pretty fcuked up he couldnt buy a pint but could buy a gun.

Hitman3000

JenovaProject wrote:

And a few others....shame the Americans wouldnt just let him go out and get pissed instead...pretty fcuked up he couldnt buy a pint but could buy a gun.

Even more ****ed up he could buy an AR 15 but too young to buy a hand gun.

Hitman3000

JenovaProject wrote:

And a few others....shame the Americans wouldnt just let him go out and get pissed instead...pretty fcuked up he couldnt buy a pint but could buy a gun.

Sorry to copy ur post again, yeah a few beers might have given the prick a bit of perspective, but alcohol is so dangerous.

JenovaProject

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Sorry to copy ur post again, yeah a few beers might have given the prick a bit of perspective, but alcohol is so dangerous.

Not as dangerous as guns my friend...no massacres from getting pissed(I say in my best stereotypical Irish drunk accent)

Hitman3000

JenovaProject wrote:

Not as dangerous as guns my friend...no massacres from getting pissed(I say in my best stereotypical Irish drunk accent)

Dude a chat few beers and the craic solve the world's problems. Happy days

JenovaProject

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Dude a chat few beers and the craic solve the world's problems. Happy days

We might be on to something simple and easy to implement...guns 21 alcohol 18...its a fcuking start aint it.

muppetshow1451

riffmongous wrote: »

Switzerland is a unique case though, as the military service also helps with the identification of people who might have mental issues so these people are not going to be allowed to possess weapons

So Norway have had masshootings?They have same system?
Both use conscript army.And Norway didnt ban semi auto rifles,only made it harder to get.

Manic Moran

Christy42 wrote: »

So then why did Trump reverse Obama's legislation? Why is he letting people he feels are dangerous run around with guns? Why is Trump (or the Republicans) not promising legislation with regards to this?

You realise in your first question that you are dumping absolutely every single form of mental health issue together? You are equating someone with dyslexia or agoraphobia with someone who is a raving psychotic. You can have a mental impairment which Social Security may feel will affect your ability to control your finances, and not be in any way a threat to public safety, which is precisely why the various disability advocacy and civil rights groups opposed the implementation of the rule and supported the repeal.

That is a separate question to the third. I, too, would be curious to see what proposal Trump or the Republicans come up with to address the issue of mental health in general, and firearms safety with mental health specifically.

JupiterKid

The only comment I'll pass on this thread is that those who defend and/or apologists for the deeply sick gun culture in the USA have a deeply warped sense of perspective of what is the right thing to do.

Hitman3000

JupiterKid wrote:

The only comment I'll pass on this thread is that those who defend and/or apologists for the deeply sick gun culture in the USA have a deeply warped sense of perspective of what is the right thing to do.

America is a big country with the population size they can absorb a massacre every few months, at least the Muppets on here would have you believe.

Chrongen

BattleCorp wrote: »

If your interpretation was correct, do you not think all the eminent legal eagles in America would have twigged your point already?

Check out the brains on Brad.

There is money to be made.

Chrongen

Let's face it

When it comes to this kind of discussion there are two types of people.

Those who see guns as tools of death

AND

Those who see them as something to be likened to motorbikes or enhanced double D cups. Something to be posed with and lusted after.

The latter who adore weaponry rarely have a pair of boxing gloves in their arsenal.

muppetshow1451

Chrongen wrote: »

Let's face it

When it comes to this kind of discussion there are two types of people.

Those who see guns as tools of death

AND

Those who see them as something to be likened to motorbikes or enhanced double D cups. Something to be posed with and lusted after.

The latter who adore weaponry rarely have a pair of boxing gloves in their arsenal.

The latter who adore boxing gloves wasnt known for being the brightest either.

Chrongen

muppetshow1451 wrote: »

The latter who adore boxing gloves wasnt known for being the brightest either.

Missed it completely, didn't you.