@ Badgerbadger"To use Kent's words, if you think taking
away all the guns is the solution, you're hallucinating."But I'm betting if you take all the guns away there will be a lot fewer
gun-related deaths.In this country, we indulge males'
predilection for violence rather than discourage it for one reason: $$$. So why
don't we use these industries' profit streams as a financial source to
strengthen our mental health system and provide more effective and proactive
services to the mentally unstable. We can call it the Testosterone Tax.
I for one would like to see the demographics of the "Reduced" violent
crime rate.Is this trend overall or what?Do they
separate out the death by age group?To me, the over all crime rate
has been reduced, but I think there is an increase among the teen and early
20's age group (no documentation to back this up).Hollywood and
Video games are partly to blame for this increase, in my mind... the other part
is PARENTS not doing their due diligence in monitoring what and how long these
things are done.We have become so PC in our world, that even
Teenagers threaten to call the cops if a parents disciplines them....Then when something like this happens... who is to blame? the weapon of choice
of course, not the parents/system/hollywood...
There will always be people who will trade liberty for security, but, did they
take the time to check to see if any "laws" had been broken? Elliot
Roger stabbed three people to death before shooting anyone. Is
"stabbing" people to death against the law? Why didn't that
"law" stop Elliot Roger. Elliot Roger hit four people with his car. Is
"hitting" people with a car against the law? Why didn't that
"law" stop Elliot Roger?Elliot Roger's father is a
photographer who specializes in taking pictures of women's naked
"backsides". Elliot Roger claimed that he was spurned by women who
didn't want to have sex with him. Did the fact that no one is
"required" to have sex stop Elliot Roger from killing people?Elliot Roger used his BMW as a battering ram to run over people. Did Elliot
Roger break any laws about killing people with his BMW? Should BMWs be banned
because they can be use to kill people?Elliot Roger was in theraphy.
Is it possible that Elliot Roger was not mentally stable? Who
killed those people, Elliot Rogers, the BMW, the knife, the gun? I say it was
@DarrelRe: "Face it, if the military wanted to take over, there is
nothing you or I could do to stop it"...2nd amendment
wasn't intended to prevent military taking over. Though that's one
thing it would help to prevent.Think about it... how many people in
the US Army? (539,675)How many PEOPLE in the USA (313.9 million in
2012)So... 1/2 Million vs 314 Million... who would even try it???====IMO 2nd Amendment was designed more to keep other
nations from invading. Remember... Japan decided AGAINST invading the US
mainland, because as one General said, "there would be an armed citizen
behind every blade of grass".It's also designed to
discourage any overly-ambitious government bureaucrat from trying to take over
government control by force, or abuse the population.===Mostly... it wasn't intended to WIN... It was intended to keep ANY of
these government takeovers from even being considered...
We can dance around and blame hollywood and mental illness and liberals and who
knows what all but we can't pretend we can leave gun control off the table.
As one post earlier noted, even 'the Onion' can see it. Developed
nations all over the world have armed citizens. And liberals, and hollywood
violence and the mentally ill. But they don't have the mass shootings nor
even but a few of the 'day to day' type shootings we experience here.
Gun control isn't the only tool in the box. But it's one that should
never be left out of the box.
@Badgerbadger"And the people he knifed to death? How does a gun law
change that?"You could probably go one step further since
I'm not sure any of the recently proposed gun laws would prevent the gun
deaths in that attack. Fact is "not one more" just isn't possible.
However, we have over 10,000 murders from guns each year. We can't get rid
of them all, but we should be able to do better than our near worst in the
industrialized world rates (Russia, Brazil, and Mexico are the exceptions and
I'm not sure the latter two necessarily are considered first world
nations)."Even without knives or guns, this guy could still
rape, strangle, club to death, hit people with a car, any number of violent
acts. Choosing his method is so inferior to prevention through addressing the
cause."I see no reason why we can't address multiple
We are the most heavily armed of the first world nations. But even our
oversupply of guns is incapable of stopping the mass shootings. What's the
answer? The Right seems to think even more guns is the answer. But facts are
facts, and if you have a gun in your house, you or one of your loved ones is
more likely to be killed or injured by it than that it will be used to prevent
any sort of crime. Guns aren't the answer. They are a big part of the
problem. Just because the NRA has bullied almost all our politicians into
submission doesn't mean it's right.
Actually, the rate of violent crime in the USA is now half what it was in 1980.
Violence is decreasing, not increasing. The alarmists are wrong. The Elliott
Rodgers and Adam Lanzas of the world are mentally disturbed people who needed
professional help. Somehow we've got to help the few who are prone to
violent outbursts. That's a hard problem to solve.
@DemosthenesFace it, if the military wanted to take over, there is
nothing you or I could do to stop it. Simple fact. So using arms as a
protection from government overreach is doesn't work.The
constitution provides entirely legal ways to change the government without
revolt. It's called voting. Don't like how Congress works, vote your
guy out (I know, the problem is never my guy, it's always someone else, so
I'll send my guy back). Want to make a change the Constitution
doesn't allow for? Change it, (e.g. if you don't like the equal
protection clause being used to allow same sex marriage, pass an amendment).It was written with the intent that we not have a standing army, but
rather we would mobilize the local militias as needed. Because of that, the
well-regulated militia would be allowed to maintain arms (in fact in those days,
it was required to BRING your gun).We have had a standing military
since WWII, defense spending shows no sign of slowing down. Our attitude of the
second amendment needs changing too. Or should we disband the military as the
Kent and SchneeAnd the people he knifed to death? How does a gun law
change that? Are the ones killed by bullets the only ones you care about? The
people who were stabbed are just as dead. Even without knives or
guns, this guy could still rape, strangle, club to death, hit people with a car,
any number of violent acts. Choosing his method is so inferior to prevention
through addressing the cause.To use Kent's words, if you think
taking away all the guns is the solution, you're hallucinating.
LaRue, you will be shocked every time this happens because it will happen over
and over until we start dealing with it like adults. Cute little aphorisms'
like "guns don't kill people do" is nothing more than a code for
let's do nothing to stop the insanity. I know no single act will suffice
but what if a simple expanded background check had prevented this latest from
acquiring a weapon and dealing with mental health issues as part a quality
healthcare system, who knows what could have been prevented. Blame it on
Hollywood or Silicon Valley if it makes you feel better but I personally blame
all of us. "Not one more"!
@John Charity Spring. I find it interesting you blame Hollywood and the
entertainment industry. I am sure you would not blame guns for killing people,
because people kill people, right? How does Hollywood kill people
then? It is the same principle the right uses in their argument over gun
The murder rate has actually fallen by 50% from its high in 1990. We are
becoming a much less violent society, but we have seen a huge uptick in mass
shootings. This seems completely contradictory. I don't know the reason,
and I don't think anyone else does either.
If I may paraphrase what the second amendment is intended to say: The nation
needs a military, but the right of citizens to bear arms shall not be
infringed.The second amendment was intended to protect the citizens
from their government. That's the whole theme of the Constitution --
restricting the power of the federal government while protecting the rights of
states and citizens.
John Dillinger and Bonnie & Clyde were a long time before television and
video games. You cannot blame the violence acts committed by individuals on
easy scapegoats like TV and games. Some people just become violent, and we have
to deal directly with that.
@JCS"This is the most correct letter to appear in this paper in a long
time. Our society is becoming more and more violent at a rate never before
seen."Violence rates have declined the past couple decades. Mass
shootings are one of the few things to increase but they make up a small portion
of gun violence. And the world is having it's lowest rates of violence in
human history. So your argument is based on a completely incorrect premise.
A headline in the Onion recently was spot-on: "'No Way To Prevent
This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens." Yes, most other
countries have figured this out; and it has nothing to do with how violent our
society has become (which I don't buy). It has everything to do with lax
gun laws. It's more a function of availability than anything else, given
the fact that we are unique in the world in our infatuation with weapons that
have no other purpose than to kill people.So take your pick. We can
either start interpreting the Second Amendment as it was written and start
restricting gun ownership, except for those who are part of a well-regulated
militia, or we can keep on having mass killings on an accelerating basis. And if
you think there's really another option, you're hallucinating.
Oh, and did I mention entitlement mentality? This guy felt entitled, another
serious flaw in our current social thinking. One person is never
entitled to another person's goods (in this case, body) or services (in
this case sex). But for this knifer, society taught him that he was entitled to
what others had and when the wouldn't roll and give it to him, he killed
them. The gun and the knives would have killed no one, without the
sexual fire and entitlement mentality that liberals have fueled in our society
over the last 50+ years.
It is not just the violent behavior is a problem. I found it most alarming that
the recent shooter was killing people because he felt entitled to sex with women
who weren't giving it to him. The constant distortion of sex's place
in our lives really played out in this case, as it has in so many public forum
issues. But don't you dare say something about God or values is
public. God and values are expected to stay in the closet, but sex has become
This is the most correct letter to appear in this paper in a long time. Our
society is becoming more and more violent at a rate never before seen.The irrefutable fact is that Hollywood and the rest of the modern
entertainment industry are largely to blame for this epidemic of violence. Study
after study has found a link between the consumption of violent entertainment
and violent behavior. This is irrefutable fact. Unfortunately, this
violent entertainment is reinforced by left-wing entitlement policies which
cause young men to focus on entertainment instead of working. Their greatest
ambition in life is to live in their parents' basements. No wonder that
Western Civilization has reached its nadir.